James F. Adams ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a clear no consensus result. The closer's rationale is: Every Wikipedia article needs to pass GNG. SNGs are simply a shortcut that presumes that sources exist to satisfy GNG when a topic satisfies the SNG. However, what WP:N actually says is: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. Since this article clearly does meet WP:SOLDIER, which is listed at the SNG Wikipedia:Notability (people), it was incumbent upon the closer to take account of those !votes which quoted WP:SOLDIER and not suggest that those relying on GNG held more weight. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Necrothesp ( talk) 23:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm still mulling this over, but for an SNG instead of the essay (which SOLDIER is), how about WP:ANYBIO #1? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply

That would work too. However, given that despite its essay status, SOLDIER is actually listed at WP:NBIO I think citing it remains valid, despite the ongoing efforts of some editors to claim it isn't. Frankly, given the frequency of its use in AfD discussions and the respect it's given by the majority of editors working in the field, I'm really not sure why it has remained an essay. But yes, you are entirely correct that the MoH also clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 23:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support the close by Scottywong: I was a Delete vote, not a Redirect vote, but Redirect was the correct outcome.

• I think that what Necrothesp is trying to say (sorry I don't speak Extreme Wikilayer yet), is that because WP:N refers to NPEOPLE in the box of the right, NSOLDER becomes an SNG because it is referred in NPEOPLE. By this logic, every essay that is mentioned in any SNG becomes part of the N guideline. Slick as a contract at a used car lot.
• I think Necrothesp's idea that GNG is not a weightier standard than NSOLDIER is outside the consensus. yes GNG has more weight than a misinterpreted essay.
• This is not the place to relitigate the AfD, but the place to review the close. In this case, the closer did examine and weigh the arguments presented in the discussion regarding the existence of RS showing notability. I believe they also properly weighed the "votes" against the !votes WP:CLOSEAFD. This is too often lacking in closes and I appreciate the closer doing it here.
• Too often AfDs are lazily closed based on presumption, when the presumption has been objected to in the AfD, instead of the closer taking the time to evaluate the arguments and evidence. I appreciate the closer not doing a lazy presumption close here.
• With all the discussion that went on, the Keeps failed to produce any sources for the closer to consider and failed to offer convincing arguments for the closer against the Delete rationale. The Keep votes simply lacked evidence/sources and effective arguments for the closer to consider.
• Weighing essays just like SNGs is a problem at AfD and closing AfDs based on votes instead of !votes is a problem at AfD. The closer did not do this and followed WP:CLOSEAFD.
• The reasons why NSOLDIER and ANYBIO are not met are clearly explained (and remain unrefuted) in the AfD discussion, not appropriate to repeat here.
• Scottywong, thank you for explaining your close. Doing this (when appropriate) is very helpful.   //  Timothy ::  talk , 20:34, 1 October 2020‎

• Endorse- people look at the words "rebuttable presumption of notability" and, through some trick of eyesight or psychology, read "permanent exemption from WP:V and WP:N". The fact is, after over a decade on the encyclopedia and a week at AfD, the only sources were a database entry at an archived website and the perenially unreliable Find-A-Grave. That tells me that, whatever the "rebuttable presumption" may be, it's been rebutted. Reyk _YO! 06:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, overturn closing statement I don't think this is an SNG. So the close justification is just mistaken. But then again, it's not an SNG, so the close result it right. Hobit ( talk) 07:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, although SOLDIER has not had widespread community discussion that I'm aware of, so it's not an SNG. WP:PAGEDECIDE never came up in the discussion, but this seems to be a case where, while the information is worthy, there isn't enough coverage to support a stand-alone article. Hog Farm _Bacon 11:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Consensus was for a merge and redirect if not deletion. An RfC on spinouts can be held at the redirect target’s talk page. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse An article without sources would come close to WP:OR. MisterBee1966 ( talk) 17:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The closer is correct - GNG must be met, regardless of SNGs. I see nothing else being appealed. SportingFlyer T· C 09:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse in view of the SNG being an essay rather than an SNG. I would much prefer to ignore GNG, which I consider troublesome, and rely on SNGs, and would favor overturning if there were an SNG. Can we upgrade the essay to an SNG? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I think of SOLDIER as an SNG, because WP:NBIO links to it, which I see as an incorporation by reference. Still, the key word in A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... is presumed, which doesn't mean "guaranteed". A presumption can be rebutted, and here, it was. Le v!v ich 17:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply