- 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 consensus as concerns redirect, so one can be created and then contested. Sandstein 21:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Luis F. Castro
- Luis F. Castro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a test case. One Distinguished Service Cross doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER, but he (and others like him) are already in the list of Puerto Rican recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross, so a redirect seems to be in order. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep. You seem to be advocating for a redirect and not outright deletion. You are able to make the page a redirect yourself if you wish. 331dot ( talk) 11:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete (OK with redirect as well, do not think it is needed). Doesn't pass SOLDIER. My BEFORE doesn't show anything approaching SIGCOV. Article itself is sourced to his DSC citation. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete without redirect. There's nothing except the DSC. I don't doubt the man was brave but this makes me think WP:MEMORIAL. Remove from the DSC page as well.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As I often !vote on similar articles, I wanted to note that I do not find anything in newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com about Castro. I do not know if being awarded the DSC should give one the presumption of notability.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think DSC does not meet SOLDEIR(1), but it does not really matter as SOLDIER judt creates a presumption that the subject is notable (as in sources should be out there...). Subject still has to meet GNG.
Icewhiz (
talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree that a subject has to "meet GNG", my interpretation of suitability for the encyclopedia is that there may be many reasons we presume an article is suitable without
WP:GNG/
WP:42 and the subject specific guides are a formalization of a number of these. Even now that things like newspapers.com are more widely available (check out
WP:TWL if you are interested in free access, by the way), online newspaper archives have enormous gaps in their coverage; more articles are not indexed than are and the gaps are not random across time or space so not finding a result is not terribly informative unless you know that the likely newspapers are indexed and the subject is not covered there.
Rather than throw out babys and bathwater, consensus developed in the past that we can in some cases presume an article is suitable and keep it on the encyclopedia, so long as it doesn't violate the
core content policies. I respect that this argument is not likely new to you, but I felt it was appropriate to make a reply.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 17:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- That is in fact the entire point of SNGs, although reminding people of that seems to be like spitting in the wind, these days. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree that a subject has to "meet GNG", my interpretation of suitability for the encyclopedia is that there may be many reasons we presume an article is suitable without
WP:GNG/
WP:42 and the subject specific guides are a formalization of a number of these. Even now that things like newspapers.com are more widely available (check out
WP:TWL if you are interested in free access, by the way), online newspaper archives have enormous gaps in their coverage; more articles are not indexed than are and the gaps are not random across time or space so not finding a result is not terribly informative unless you know that the likely newspapers are indexed and the subject is not covered there.
Rather than throw out babys and bathwater, consensus developed in the past that we can in some cases presume an article is suitable and keep it on the encyclopedia, so long as it doesn't violate the
core content policies. I respect that this argument is not likely new to you, but I felt it was appropriate to make a reply.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 17:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think DSC does not meet SOLDEIR(1), but it does not really matter as SOLDIER judt creates a presumption that the subject is notable (as in sources should be out there...). Subject still has to meet GNG.
Icewhiz (
talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Private with a single second-level decoration. NN, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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 delete. No consensus as concerns redirect, so one can be created and then contested. Sandstein 21:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Luis F. Castro
- Luis F. Castro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a test case. One Distinguished Service Cross doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER, but he (and others like him) are already in the list of Puerto Rican recipients of the Distinguished Service Cross, so a redirect seems to be in order. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 10:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural Keep. You seem to be advocating for a redirect and not outright deletion. You are able to make the page a redirect yourself if you wish. 331dot ( talk) 11:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete (OK with redirect as well, do not think it is needed). Doesn't pass SOLDIER. My BEFORE doesn't show anything approaching SIGCOV. Article itself is sourced to his DSC citation. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete without redirect. There's nothing except the DSC. I don't doubt the man was brave but this makes me think WP:MEMORIAL. Remove from the DSC page as well.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment As I often !vote on similar articles, I wanted to note that I do not find anything in newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com about Castro. I do not know if being awarded the DSC should give one the presumption of notability.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think DSC does not meet SOLDEIR(1), but it does not really matter as SOLDIER judt creates a presumption that the subject is notable (as in sources should be out there...). Subject still has to meet GNG.
Icewhiz (
talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree that a subject has to "meet GNG", my interpretation of suitability for the encyclopedia is that there may be many reasons we presume an article is suitable without
WP:GNG/
WP:42 and the subject specific guides are a formalization of a number of these. Even now that things like newspapers.com are more widely available (check out
WP:TWL if you are interested in free access, by the way), online newspaper archives have enormous gaps in their coverage; more articles are not indexed than are and the gaps are not random across time or space so not finding a result is not terribly informative unless you know that the likely newspapers are indexed and the subject is not covered there.
Rather than throw out babys and bathwater, consensus developed in the past that we can in some cases presume an article is suitable and keep it on the encyclopedia, so long as it doesn't violate the
core content policies. I respect that this argument is not likely new to you, but I felt it was appropriate to make a reply.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 17:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- That is in fact the entire point of SNGs, although reminding people of that seems to be like spitting in the wind, these days. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree that a subject has to "meet GNG", my interpretation of suitability for the encyclopedia is that there may be many reasons we presume an article is suitable without
WP:GNG/
WP:42 and the subject specific guides are a formalization of a number of these. Even now that things like newspapers.com are more widely available (check out
WP:TWL if you are interested in free access, by the way), online newspaper archives have enormous gaps in their coverage; more articles are not indexed than are and the gaps are not random across time or space so not finding a result is not terribly informative unless you know that the likely newspapers are indexed and the subject is not covered there.
Rather than throw out babys and bathwater, consensus developed in the past that we can in some cases presume an article is suitable and keep it on the encyclopedia, so long as it doesn't violate the
core content policies. I respect that this argument is not likely new to you, but I felt it was appropriate to make a reply.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 17:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think DSC does not meet SOLDEIR(1), but it does not really matter as SOLDIER judt creates a presumption that the subject is notable (as in sources should be out there...). Subject still has to meet GNG.
Icewhiz (
talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Private with a single second-level decoration. NN, I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.