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 delete. Consensus appears to be that this doesn't pass WP:BLP1E. NW (Talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_Hoh[edit]

Matthew_Hoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable nor lasting importanceBevinbell 02:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: The refs given are to good sources - Washington post [1], US Dept of State [2], Christian Science Monitor [3]. My reservation is that this might violate WP:NOTNEWS, but it does look as if people are picking up his resignation as a notable event in the history of the war in Afghanistan, with Hoh apparently being the first official to resign over the issue - [4], [5], [6] -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 09:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a diplomatic position that we would normally judge by WP:Politician or similar standards. And on those it's absolutely not even a question. The fact that an internal diplomatic issue has come up is hardly an indication of notability, but rather a news event. If you think this is a newsworth event that warrants inclusion then that's one thing, but there's absolutely nothing about this article as is that suggests the most basic notability criteria are met. Shadowjams (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I definitely see significant coverage by reliable sources ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc.) but it looks like all that coverage falls under WP:BLP1E. — Rankiri (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Well sourced article for a U.S political figure that made news. The Scythian 04:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling him "a U.S political figure" is a bit of an overstatement though, don't you think? From what I can tell, Matthew Hoh only had a limited, non-career appointment as a contract employee of the Department of State and all the coverage of this person is in some way related to his resignation from that position. — Rankiri (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was a foreign service official at one point as well. He definitely made news, and the article is well sourced. I question the need to delete this article, repeatedly. One researching the topic might find use with a sourced stub of Matthew Hoh as a jumping point to the said sources. I sure did. The Scythian 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually not a foreign service official (see his employment status here http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/mideastdigest/130971.htm) but was a contract employee who resigned four weeks before he was to lose his contract. I originally nominated for non-notable, but I think WP:NOTNEWS applies as well. Bevinbell 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per above. Sources indicate his notability pretty much stems from one event.--PinkBull 03:42, 5 March 2010 (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.