Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Redding Pitt

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.

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

I can only confirm that the first citation mentions the subject at all, and that one only mentions him in passing. Even setting aside the relative lack of citations, the subject is a garden variety bureaucrat and lawyer. Nothing in this article asserts any real notability. DELETE due to lack of notability. Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 05:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that no one can even be bothered to comment on this article's deletion discussion speaks to the fact that the subject commands little to no notability. Bonewah (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comments on an AfD nomination within a reasonable length of time, it is normally closed as "no consensus", which results in the article being kept. James500 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Appears to be two entries at politicalgraveyard, as Charles R. and as Redding, together, still no indication of notability, and unable to find coverage which would indicate otherwise. Bronze Star does not indicate it was for valor, and even if it were, a single fourth-tier award. No suitable destination for a redirect, ... Dru of Id (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a (former) state chairman for a major political party. Searching "Redding Pitt" turned up [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and so on. - Dravecky (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like pretty marginal stuff, but if you could work that into the article, i might be inclined to change my !vote. Bonewah (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my standards: chair of a major state party, United States Attorney, defense attorney in a 'wedding cake' trial, and member of the Democratic National Committee. Bearian (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment: Please note the in-depth coverage I found about the subject in my !vote above. - Dravecky (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Also note that none of the 'in-depth coverage' mentioned has found a place into the article itself. Bonewah (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (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.