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. No evidence that such a position exists has been presented (according to my knowledge this role is actually taken care of by the Director for Cybersecurity Policy on the National Security Council, and a thorough online search returned nothing to the contrary), therefore this article is deemed unfit for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White House Cyber Security Adviser[edit]

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

Not a cabinet position, WP:RS indicate that it is an *informal* advisory role (see [1]). Notability of position is dubious. Article in current form is highly non-encyclopedic and unsourced. (Previous PROD template removed by creator.) General Ization ^Talk 17:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, since I was the original PROD'er and that was my rationale. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's questionable whether such a position exists, the article is barely comprehensible, and it contradicts its sole source. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:Info, and WP:V. Such a position does not seem to be a Presidential Cabinet appointment. This article is almost WP:OR, except for the Washington Post story. And even as an informal cyber security advisory position there really is no other coverage in independent secondary sources. This Washington Post story could have it wrong since no other sources verify or confirm this actually happened between Giuliani and Trump. No other sources deny it either. It just doesn't exist except for this one Washington Post article. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the page should be keeper because although it's vague, when we learn more about the White House Cyber Security Adviser spot we can make this page better.--Reddan33 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Reddan33 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Wait - we should keep an article even though we admit it's "vague" as to whether the subject even exists? AusLondonder (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There as uncertainty as to whether this position actually exists. Even if it does it clearly fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not even in English. Are we going to have an article on "President's Son-In-Law" now that Trump has one as an advisor? W Nowicki (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:17, 16 February 2017 (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.