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.
Article about a person who's only claim to fame is serving as commanding officer of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. All three of the Chinese language sources in the article (checked through Google Translate) seem to be nothing more than official press releases about him being appointed CO of that carrier, and his rank,
Navy Captain (which is equal to a colonel), is below the level that is listed as minimum for presumed notability atWikiProject Military history. He also fails all other criteria on that page. AFAIK serving as commanding officer of an aircraft carrier or other capital ship in the navies of other countries doesn't automatically make someone notable, so I can't see why being CO of the Chinese carrier should be more notable than being CO of any other carrier. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Correction: he's apparently a rear admiral, but being a rear admiral doing a job that is normally done by a Navy Captain doesn't IMHO make him any more notable than Captains doing the same job... - Tom |
Thomas.W talk21:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The Liaoning carries a special significance in the Chinese psyche because it is the first (and currently one of two operational) aircraft carrier of the Chinese navy - thus its commanding officers get a lot of press coverage on Chinese-language media, which, imo, does in fact make that person notable enough for inclusion. I'd put his standing roughly at the level of
Nie Haisheng, one of the first Chinese men in space who was also "just" a colonel prior to his space flight, then promoted to Major General.
Colipon+(
Talk)
22:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
So you've totally failed to appreciate both points. Please note the difference between "carrier" and "carrier group". Although the commander of a carrier would be of captain rank (albeit such a senior captain to command a Nimitz that they'd probably be WP:N), the commander of the tactical group centred on that carrier is a separate role, of admiral rank, a rear admiral at the very least (and implicitly WP:N).
Andy Dingley (
talk)
23:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:ONLYESSAY. It reflects almost ten years of editing
WP:CONSENSUS. I could instead spell out "it is the consensus through editing and repeated (as in, almost every) AfD of an officier of general or flag rank that general and flag officers are notable" - oh, one moment; I did. Now, according to that part of ATA, "by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy" - so, in what way is Admiral Liu Zhe different from every other admiral that makes him not notable when they are? -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that every single one of the many thousands of one to four star generals/admirals in the world (there's currently one general/admiral per ~1,400 uniformed personnel in the US Armed Forces, or ~900 generals/admirals out of ~1.25M, and many other countries have a much higher percentage than that...), regardless of what job they're doing, is automatically notable enough to have a stand-alone article? - Tom |
Thomas.W talk23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The argument that general-ranked officers are automatically notable has, from memory, not been sustained in some previous deletion discussions. In addition to Tom's comment, I'd note that the Australian Defence Force's most recent annual report states that the ADF currently has 188 one star or higher-ranked officers. Very few of these officers would meet WP:BIO.
Nick-D (
talk)
04:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's exactly what we're suggesting! Just like the umpteen thousand members of national and state legislatures are notable per
WP:POLITICIAN! And yes, this argument has been sustained in almost every AfD in which it has been used. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:SOLDIER, and because he's well known in China for being the commander of the country's only aircraft carrier in service (the second carrier has been launched but not yet commissioned). -
Zanhe (
talk)
01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per Users:Zanhe & Colipon and
WP:GNG. The usual discussion over general/flag ranked officers focuses on combat or other significant commands; personally I do not think an unremarkable BG/Rear Admiral Lower Half in service jobs or admin is notable. But this officer is commanding China's first carrier - which makes him notable, and should meet GNG if we include Mandarin press mentions.
Buckshot06(talk)22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: It's interesting to see that everyone who has !voted "keep" here seems to feel that an essay on WikiProject:Military History (claiming that it says that all one to four star generals/admirals, past and present, around the world, no matter what their job is, are notable enough to have a stand-alone article) carries more weight than a Wikipedia guideline (
WP:N; since the subject fails
WP:GNG, unless someone proficient in Chinese can come up with something better than the pressreleases in the article...). Especially since the essay in question is on a project about military history, refers to people in the past tense (was awarded, held a rank, served as, etc), and makes no mention whatsoever about it also applying to modern day military "civil servants", i.e. one star generals/admirals who have held no higher offices and have no meritorius service in wars to list in their CVs. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk18:25, 14 November 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.
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.
Article about a person who's only claim to fame is serving as commanding officer of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. All three of the Chinese language sources in the article (checked through Google Translate) seem to be nothing more than official press releases about him being appointed CO of that carrier, and his rank,
Navy Captain (which is equal to a colonel), is below the level that is listed as minimum for presumed notability atWikiProject Military history. He also fails all other criteria on that page. AFAIK serving as commanding officer of an aircraft carrier or other capital ship in the navies of other countries doesn't automatically make someone notable, so I can't see why being CO of the Chinese carrier should be more notable than being CO of any other carrier. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk21:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Correction: he's apparently a rear admiral, but being a rear admiral doing a job that is normally done by a Navy Captain doesn't IMHO make him any more notable than Captains doing the same job... - Tom |
Thomas.W talk21:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The Liaoning carries a special significance in the Chinese psyche because it is the first (and currently one of two operational) aircraft carrier of the Chinese navy - thus its commanding officers get a lot of press coverage on Chinese-language media, which, imo, does in fact make that person notable enough for inclusion. I'd put his standing roughly at the level of
Nie Haisheng, one of the first Chinese men in space who was also "just" a colonel prior to his space flight, then promoted to Major General.
Colipon+(
Talk)
22:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
So you've totally failed to appreciate both points. Please note the difference between "carrier" and "carrier group". Although the commander of a carrier would be of captain rank (albeit such a senior captain to command a Nimitz that they'd probably be WP:N), the commander of the tactical group centred on that carrier is a separate role, of admiral rank, a rear admiral at the very least (and implicitly WP:N).
Andy Dingley (
talk)
23:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:ONLYESSAY. It reflects almost ten years of editing
WP:CONSENSUS. I could instead spell out "it is the consensus through editing and repeated (as in, almost every) AfD of an officier of general or flag rank that general and flag officers are notable" - oh, one moment; I did. Now, according to that part of ATA, "by virtue of the fact that a precedent exists you should provide an actual reason why the case at hand is different from or should be treated as an exception to it, rather than ignoring or dismissing it solely on the basis that it isn't a binding policy" - so, in what way is Admiral Liu Zhe different from every other admiral that makes him not notable when they are? -
The BushrangerOne ping only23:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Are you seriously suggesting that every single one of the many thousands of one to four star generals/admirals in the world (there's currently one general/admiral per ~1,400 uniformed personnel in the US Armed Forces, or ~900 generals/admirals out of ~1.25M, and many other countries have a much higher percentage than that...), regardless of what job they're doing, is automatically notable enough to have a stand-alone article? - Tom |
Thomas.W talk23:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The argument that general-ranked officers are automatically notable has, from memory, not been sustained in some previous deletion discussions. In addition to Tom's comment, I'd note that the Australian Defence Force's most recent annual report states that the ADF currently has 188 one star or higher-ranked officers. Very few of these officers would meet WP:BIO.
Nick-D (
talk)
04:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, that's exactly what we're suggesting! Just like the umpteen thousand members of national and state legislatures are notable per
WP:POLITICIAN! And yes, this argument has been sustained in almost every AfD in which it has been used. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:SOLDIER, and because he's well known in China for being the commander of the country's only aircraft carrier in service (the second carrier has been launched but not yet commissioned). -
Zanhe (
talk)
01:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per Users:Zanhe & Colipon and
WP:GNG. The usual discussion over general/flag ranked officers focuses on combat or other significant commands; personally I do not think an unremarkable BG/Rear Admiral Lower Half in service jobs or admin is notable. But this officer is commanding China's first carrier - which makes him notable, and should meet GNG if we include Mandarin press mentions.
Buckshot06(talk)22:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: It's interesting to see that everyone who has !voted "keep" here seems to feel that an essay on WikiProject:Military History (claiming that it says that all one to four star generals/admirals, past and present, around the world, no matter what their job is, are notable enough to have a stand-alone article) carries more weight than a Wikipedia guideline (
WP:N; since the subject fails
WP:GNG, unless someone proficient in Chinese can come up with something better than the pressreleases in the article...). Especially since the essay in question is on a project about military history, refers to people in the past tense (was awarded, held a rank, served as, etc), and makes no mention whatsoever about it also applying to modern day military "civil servants", i.e. one star generals/admirals who have held no higher offices and have no meritorius service in wars to list in their CVs. - Tom |
Thomas.W talk18:25, 14 November 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.