Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlie Christensen

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. Perhaps US Attorneys should be notable, but the sources to show it seem to be lacking in this instance. RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Christensen

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doubtful that being a United States Attorney confers notability; certain that being only an acting one doesn't. Fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being US attorney, especially for a district like that of Utah, in which the person covers all operations of enforcing federal law for a district with 3 million inhabitants is clearly a sign of notability. This applies as much to acting US attorney's as those who are regularly nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where's the press coverage? The newspaper article "Triumvirate of women take lead in federal law enforcement in Utah" says she's the first woman to hold that position, but that's the only mention she gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, can't find anything useful apart from a couple of short announcements of her appointment, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: United States Attorney links its U.S. Attorneys offices to the District Court articles. Only some of these articles list U.S Attorneys, and those I've seen don't provide any biographical information, and are partially bluelinked 1, 2. Ideally there'd be a standardised treatment of U.S. Attorneys. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage causes the subject to fail WP:BIO. I suspect fully confirmed U.S. Attorneys ought to be considered notable, but that would not necessarily apply to those filling the role on an acting basis. Lagrange 613 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply being a US Attorney does not confer notability by the job title alone. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2019 (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.