The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Apparently it took this AfD for someone to notice that the article was worthwhile and in need of help. Thanks to those who took part in the cleanup. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 11:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that everyone is learning from my and Dhartung's example. Articles can be fixed by simply doing a bit of research, finding some sources, and editing the article with ordinary editing tools that even editors without accounts have. Bringing articles that haven't been fixed yet to AFD is the wrong thing to do, as stated in our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, in our Wikipedia:Editing policy, and in the big box right at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. AFD is not cleanup, and one can fix articles onesself. If you see an article that is in need of cleanup, clean it up yourself. Do as Dhartung and I have done. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chief sustainability officer[edit]

Chief sustainability officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unsourced original research that basically amounts to wishful thinking. Delete. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article's main assertion of notability (that every company's board will have a CSO) is purely speculative and unsourced. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is sufficiently asserted. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a very notable/new corporate position. Google search of term gets 15,200 hits. See [1] and [2] for some sources. If the article simply needs a rewrite, don't nominate for AfD. Joshdboz (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Uncle G (talk · contribs) just replaced the contents of the entire article. I am not withdrawing my nomination yet, but I wouldn't mind a keep now. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, much discussion of this admittedly new corporate posting. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G (talk · contribs)'s edits, is now a serviceable stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per Joshdboz, the AfD nomination should have never been made, tag it for cleanup or rewrite if you dislike the contents, but not for delete! --Arcanios (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly how it was tagged, at the time of nomination. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with thanks to Uncle G and Dhartung for improving the article. JavaTenor (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.