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. There is consensus that the sources provided support the notability of the subject.
(non-admin closure)Jack Frost (
talk) 10:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy keepWP:CSK #3. No policy-based reason for deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Clearly notable person.
No such user (
talk) 12:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No such user, well I /think/ the IP's reasoning should be
WP:GNG since they are arguing that it's poorly sourced. --
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No such user, well these articles could be considered first-party sources, I believe. --
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Irrelevant. They are reliable and prove he is who the article says he is. Given his rank and position he obviously meets notability guidelines. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete article in no ways meets GNG. It is time for people to stop using proceduralism to preserve clearly unnotable articles. Especially considering that we do not make new articles go through the AfC process. That is what we should make articles go through. As it stands it is still occasionally possible for people to create articles without starting an account and many others create accounts with the first and only things they do being creating an article. Wikipedia needs to fix this system.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very clearly meets
WP:SOLDIER. Not only a general, but chief of his country's armed forces, as attested in reliable sources. Truly ridiculous nomination with no attempt at
WP:BEFORE. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak KeepWP:SOLDIER is just a presumption of notability, while sources aren't currently on the page he seems to have some coverage in RS, probably enough to meet
WP:SIGCOV and therefore
WP:GNG.
Mztourist (
talk) 13:39, 16 July 2020 (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.
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. There is consensus that the sources provided support the notability of the subject.
(non-admin closure)Jack Frost (
talk) 10:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Speedy keepWP:CSK #3. No policy-based reason for deletion, and AfD is not cleanup. Clearly notable person.
No such user (
talk) 12:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No such user, well I /think/ the IP's reasoning should be
WP:GNG since they are arguing that it's poorly sourced. --
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
No such user, well these articles could be considered first-party sources, I believe. --
Tyw7 (
🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (
ping me) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Irrelevant. They are reliable and prove he is who the article says he is. Given his rank and position he obviously meets notability guidelines. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete article in no ways meets GNG. It is time for people to stop using proceduralism to preserve clearly unnotable articles. Especially considering that we do not make new articles go through the AfC process. That is what we should make articles go through. As it stands it is still occasionally possible for people to create articles without starting an account and many others create accounts with the first and only things they do being creating an article. Wikipedia needs to fix this system.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 12:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Very clearly meets
WP:SOLDIER. Not only a general, but chief of his country's armed forces, as attested in reliable sources. Truly ridiculous nomination with no attempt at
WP:BEFORE. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 12:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak KeepWP:SOLDIER is just a presumption of notability, while sources aren't currently on the page he seems to have some coverage in RS, probably enough to meet
WP:SIGCOV and therefore
WP:GNG.
Mztourist (
talk) 13:39, 16 July 2020 (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.