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 --Stephen 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey D. Gordon[edit]

Jeffrey D. Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - A military spokesman is not notable in his own right and has not independently contributed to the events related to the Guantanamo Bay proceedings. The article does not satisfy WP:NOT. There of course are independent articles mentioning him, but that is expected due to his position - not due to his contributions to the subject at hand. BWH76 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a military spokesman is a diplomat for the armed forces. He is in charge of the public affairs for that arena, has been called the camp's top Washington spin doctor, the Pentagon spokesman on Guantánamo, &c. I'm not saying those claims are true, but it is evidence of his notability. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 19:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Gordon has played a significant and creative role in the USA's war on terror. He has been called on to testify before the United States Congress on the controversial claim that dozens of Guantanamo captives. No offense, but I believe it is a fallacy to to think that a public affairs officer's role can be performed by rote. Geo Swan (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that the position is not "performed by rote", but there is no claim that he has (or is) contributing to the Guantanamo proceedings other than speaking to the press. Additionally, although some articles allude to his importance as Sherurcij states, others simply refer to him as "a" spokesman for the Pentagon (New York Times, Washington Post). Although this may be a question of semantics, it does not detract from my belief that a spokesman for the military is not notable unless he has independently done something of note (as opposed to speaking about something of note as his or her job description demands).BWH76 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This would be useful to anyone doing a project on this sort of thing. Definetly keep. -- Carerra ^{"I help newcomers!} 22:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above, this is a notable military spokesman and our biographical guidelines have been satisfied. RFerreira (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that there may be a fundamental misunderstanding as to the role of a military spokesman (or more properly, a Public Affairs Officer); a position which dozens currently hold. As opposed to perhaps a communications director or a Press Secretary (for example, in the White House), a military spokesman has no role in making policy decisions. He or she communicates the decisions and actions of others to the press - a PAO does not participate nor contribute to these actions. Asserting that a military spokesman is "a diplomat for the armed forces" is only true in the most general sense; it is not true in practice as he or she is not engaged in diplomacy )or the "the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states" as defined in Wikipedia. Although Gordon's interaction with the press is interesting, it is unencyclopedic, and any mention of Gordon may be merged to other articles describing the Guantanamo Bay proceedings.BWH76 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:BIO#Basic criteria - "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." His name appears in tons of independant reliable sources, but they are only quoting him. There's no articles to be found where he is the subject of the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Question' : I cannot find any sources that support Geo Swan's claim that Gordon was called to testify in Congress relating to the Guantanamo Bay issue (nor for any other reason). Is there a source for that? Comment - (updated) Gordon did not testify in Congress on any issue, much less the Guantanamo issue for which the article claims notability. After about 30 minutes of research, I can't find anything at all that supports the claim that he has done so. BWH76 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BWH76 is correct. I did my own check. I couldn't find references either. Although I found multiple references to Joseph Benkert's May 9 2007 testimony before Congress, with "two other officials", that quoted Gordon on that issue in the next sentence, or the next paragraph. I think now I mis-read those articles. They did not establish Gordon was one of the other officials. I now doubt he was one of the other officials. My apologies to anyone for whom this was the deciding factor in the opinion they expressed here. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the rationales for retention provided in the comments above. John254 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Geo Swan and others, I believe this suits our biographical guidelines just fine. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —BWH76 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2008 (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.