Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military Information & Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military Links at HealthHaven.com

Main project page	+ talk
News
Showcase
Style guide
Announcements and open tasks
→ Articles needing attention
→ Popular articles
→ New articles
→ Nominations for deletion	talk
The Academy	talk

Departments
Assessment	talk
→ A-Class FAQ / B-Class FAQ
→ Assessment requests
Contest	talk
Logistics	talk
Review	talk
→ Review alert box

Special projects
Great War Centennial	talk
Majestic Titan	talk

Internal organization
Coordinators	+ talk
Members	talk
→ Active / Inactive
→ Banners and userboxes
Awards	talk
Stress hotline	talk
Portals	talk
Project banner	talk
Project category

Templates
Infoboxes
→ Firearm cartridge	talk
→ Military award	talk
→ Military conflict	talk
→ Military memorial	talk
→ Military person	talk
→ Military structure	talk
→ Military test site	talk
→ Military unit	talk
→ National military	talk
→ War faction	talk
→ Weapon	talk
→ Command structure	talk
→ Operational plan	talk
→ Service record	talk
Navigation boxes	talk
→ Campaignboxes	talk
Template design style	talk

Task forces

General topics
Fortifications	talk
Intelligence	talk
Maritime warfare	talk
Military aviation	talk
Military biography	talk
Military historiography	talk
Military land vehicles	talk
Military memorials and cemeteries	talk
Military science	talk
Military technology and engineering	talk
National militaries	talk
War films	talk
Weaponry	talk

Nations and regions
African military history	talk
Australian military history	talk
Balkan military history	talk
Baltic states military history	talk
British military history	talk
Canadian military history	talk
Chinese military history	talk
Dutch military history	talk
French military history	talk
German military history	talk
Indian military history	talk
Italian military history	talk
Japanese military history	talk
Korean military history	talk
Lebanese military history	talk
Middle Eastern military history	talk
New Zealand military history	talk
Nordic military history	talk
Ottoman military history	talk
Pakistani military history	talk
Polish military history	talk
Romanian military history	talk
Russian and Soviet military history	talk
South American military history	talk
Southeast Asian military history	talk
Spanish military history	talk
Taiwanese military history	talk
United States military history	talk

Periods and conflicts
Classical warfare	talk
Medieval warfare	talk
Early Muslim military history	talk
Crusades	talk
Early Modern warfare	talk
American Revolutionary War	talk
Napoleonic era	talk
American Civil War	talk
World War I	talk
World War II	talk
Cold War	talk

edit · changes

Deletion Sorting
Project

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Military. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

Anyone can help maintain the list on this page:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Military}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Military.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

[edit] Military and combat

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staffnoncommissioned Officer

[edit] Fred Galoff

(Find sources: "Fred Galoff" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Per other recent AFDs, such as those for Henry Blomberg and Daniel Martin, soldiers who have received nothing more than a Distinguished Service Cross are not notable enough for individual WP articles. Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete I have nothing but the utmost respect for this soldier's most distinguished actions in service of his country. That said, Wikipedia is not a memorial and Galoff does not appear to be notable under WP:MILPEOPLE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Recipients of second-tier decorations are simply not notable enough unless there is another compelling reason for notability. No disrespect to them whatsoever, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial to bravery. I recommend we speedy all these DSC recipients that include only a citation and virtually nothing more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I completely disagree with the consensus that states that being awarded the DSC or the Silver Star is not enough to be considered "notable", but the fact of the matter is that the consensus has consistantly come out that way here on Wikipedia, and we all have to play by the rules. Rapier1 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Unfortunately, a lack of non-trivial mentions in reliabler sources means the article fails WP:GNG, which trumps all else really. Skinny87 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:V and the precedent set by the aforementioned AFDs in the nomination. Admirable, but not quite notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Richard K. Hulse

(Find sources: "Richard K. Hulse" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable U.S. Civil War lieutenant. I guess I can call myself a "weak delete" on this one, since on one hand I don't generally object to legitimately historical material even though minor, but on the other I'd hate to think what would happen if we permitted articles for any equivalently accomplished modern lieutenant (and above). If the author really has more to add that would lend any degree of notability (see talk page), I'm willing to hear it, but otherwise sadly I just can't see it at all. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. One article in the Civil War Times is not enough to demonstrate notability. --NellieBly (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete References not sufficient to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think anybody who had such a high rank in the Civil War should be made notable, but we are unable to find much of anything on this guy. You can't compare him to Ulysses S Grant. At least not yet.(MDesjardinss (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Delete: with all due respect to MDesjardinss, first lieutenant (or even captain, as the lead states he was a first liuetenant and body says captain) is not a high rank at all. Indeed, within the Australian Army currently the majority of new officers that graduate from Duntroon do so with the equivalent rank. Hence, they are the most junior officers in our Army. In the ACW I would assume that a first lieutenant was the most senior lieutenant within a company and therefore probably the company 2ic or in command of the senior platoon. If he was a captain, then he was a company commander. Either way, neither of those positions by themselves are notable and without an expansion to the article or a claim that he was the recipient of a notable award (i.e. MOH or multiple second level awards) I don't see that it meets the notability guidelines. The military history project as written something of a general criteria for notability of military personnel. It is contained here. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Indeed; there would have been tens of thousands of lieutenants in the US Army at any given time during the Civil War. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete How many untold millions of lieutenants would we be adding if we started adding them. Not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A captain is a high rank (for the record). Anything above Sergeant is a commanding officer, and you dont get that by licking popsicles. It takes years to become an officer, let alone a captain. He was a captain (never mustered). Yes there is not alot out there on him, but that is because the one article was SOLELY devoted to him. It just is effed up that alot of people who fought in wars who did something heroic can't be kept here, even when they are a CO, because someone on the internet deems them "not important". Okay. I don't know this person who i created the page for, but I liked the story.Phaeton23 (talk) (UTC)

With all due respect, as someone with military experience I can state categorically that you are wrong. A captain is not a high rank, and a sergeant is not a commanding officer. A lieutenant commands a platoon (roughly 30 men), a captain might be a company 2ic or historically a company commander (about 120 men). A captain commanding a company would then be an OC (officer commanding). A battalion commander or above is a CO (commanding officer) and they would be a lieutenant colonel or above, in command of a unit of between 500 to 1,000 men (or women) [depending upon branch of service and historical period]. Also the project's notability guidelines have been produced by concensus, largely with the input of many users who are either currently serving or have served so have no reason to deny heroes their due. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Non-notable military officer, lack of non-trivial reliable-sources fails WP:GNG and therefore fails notability. Skinny87 (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Notability is not a matter of rank but of sourcing. The source seems satisfactory and the arguments against all seem to be the weak argument of WP:ALLORNOTHING. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Very junior officer (despite claims to the contrary) with no great claims to notability. With all due respect to Colonel Warden, notability is not just a matter of sourcing but of achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. For the record, in response to AustralianRupert, I never said a sergeant was a CO. So because he was not awarded for his valor, that makes him.....nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it makes him one of countless thousands of junior officers throughout history. Are you advocating we have an article on every single lieutenant or captain who ever lived? Surely not! There are many thousands serving in the US Army today alone. Not having an article on Wikipedia doesn't make one nothing, now, does it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please let me clarify lest I am being misunderstood, no one is saying that this person is a "nothing". I'm sure that he did his duty and was worthy of respect, however, it does not mean that he is notable by the definitions of notability currently used by the Military History project. These criteria are listed here. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

- I understand he is a junior officer, even though he was promoted to Captain. Due to the fact that neither his commanders nor the President gave him an award, his actions are "enough" for wikipedia standards? is that what is missing? My grandfather served in the Army and was a Captain, but I'm not making him a page. Mr. Hulse exemplified bravery in the war, and considering he lived through some of the bloodiest battles (not including Antietam and Gettysburg) and he saved alot of fellow soldiers, with no brass, copper, silver, gold, or any other medal given to him by a superior, he is deemed unimportant (by Wiki standards). Also, this man had some ties to important people. Why doesnt wiki make a special section for all soldiers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaeton23 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  - You could say the same about every other junior officer who has fought in a war. That's many thousands in each world war, for instance. We simply cannot make a page about each one. So ask the question: why is this gentleman special? The answer is that he isn't. That doesn't make him a nothing. It just makes him like the vast majority of people in the world: ordinary. He was caught up in a war, he served with distinction, he survived. That doesn't make him stand out from the crowd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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. Cirt (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Gunners Selection Course

(Find sources: "Potential Gunners Selection Course" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is a strange one. It's about the change from a military program called the Potential Gunners Acquaintance Course to one called the Potential Gunners Selection Course. Author removed PROD claiming he added more sources; problem is, none of his six sources, nor anything I can find on Google, mentions anything about a "Selection Course." The Acquaintance Course seems to be going strong. Fails WP:V. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, as it presently stands the article lacks sufficient second or third party sources to meet notability requirements. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2009 (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. A consensus is to delete this article. However, some parts may be incorporated into other articles, if content is needed, let me know. Tone 12:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian terrorism

(Find sources: "Armenian terrorism" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This page is bound to be a POV minefield, and the very notion of defining 'Armenian terrorism' in term of its targets is a pov projection. Wikipedia:Terrorist is a good reading in this context. Soman (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong Delete, per Soman, wrong on so many levels that it requires little input from my end.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This term is used by many sourses^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8] This type of terrorism was in history. So we must keep this article about very important subject to study.--Interfase (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Michael M. Gunter, Dept. of Political Science Tennessee Technological University: ARMENIAN TERRORISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY
^ Pursuing The Just Cause of Their People: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism
^ Henze, Paul, Goal: Destablization Soviet Agitational Propaganda, Instability and Terrorism in NATO South, (Marina Del Ray, California, American Institute for Security Research, 1981).
^ Hoffman, Bruce, Terrorism in the United States During 1985, Rand Paper P-7194, (Santa Monica, California 1985).
^ Szaz, Michael, Armenian Terrorists and the East-West Conflict, Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (Winter 1983), pp.387-394.
^ Wilkinson, Paul, Armenian Terrorism, World Today V.39 (September 1983), pp.344-350.
^ Corsun, Andrew, Armenian Terrorism: A Profile, U.S. Department of State Bulletin, No. 82, (Washington, D.C., August 1982), pp.31-35.
^ Erich Feigl. Ein Mythos des Terrors. Armenischer Terrorismus, seine Ursachen und Hintergründe. Edition Zeitgeschichte, Freilassing 1986. (german)

- Comment not all term that can be found in google (or google books) should have articles of their own. 'German terrorism' gets 646 google book hits, 'Italian terrorism' gets 670, etc.. I'm not saying that there have never been any Armenians who were terrorists, but Wikipedia:Terrorist remains a useful principle. By defining one side of a broader conflict as 'terrorist', a pov is stated. Wikipedia needs less articles like this, and more articles that explore the complexity of modern political conflicts (without obviously taking the side of either side). --Soman (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The topic of the article exists. The title could be discussed. There are plenty of researches dedicated to the subject, whole books written about it, like for instance Francis P. Hyland. Armenian terrorism: the past, the present, the prospects. Westview Press, 1991. ISBN 0-8133-8124-X, 9780813381244. US Department of State also uses the term. Regardless of political correctness, the term is widely used, both in scholarly and political literature, the scholars and politicians. Nationalistic terrorism is something that happens in the modern world, and we cannot ignore this fact. Grandmaster 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep Its not as if Armenian terror organisation such as ASALA and JCAG never excisted. The article is also sourced, so I dont see any legit reason for deletion. Neftchi (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above --TIAYN (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete ASALA existed and there's an article about ASALA so don't try to make another article trying to demean Armenians as terrorists. --Hovhannesk (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete If the article was appropriate for Wikipedia, after a careful review it would be reduced to one line but since we don't classify terrorism based on ethnicity or race here that's clearly a non-issue. I think WP:Terrorist is pretty clear on this.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Its title is POV, and all its legitimate content is already in the ASALA article. The rest of its content is completely unencyclopaedic and biased, perverting the general concept of what the word "terrorism" means, even if such a pov word were to be allowed. The revenge attacks of Operation Nemesis has nothing to do with terrorism, the revenge attack by Gourgen Yanikian has nothing to do with "terrorism". Meowy 20:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete This article is Anti-Armenian and is refering as if Armenians are terrorists. These are assasinations by Armenians against Turkish masterminds of the Armenian Genocide, not terrorism where terrorists attack innocent random people. Hovhannesk 04:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Armenians as people are not terrorists, but there was a whole bunch of Armenian nationalistic terrorist organizations. They killed civilians too. See Orly airport attack, Esenboğa Airport attack, etc. Grandmaster 07:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Events which are already collectively covered in the ASALA article. Meowy 21:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete merge into appropriate articles; ASALA etc. No unified organisation/movement exists - this is synthesis. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per Buckshot Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete, WP:Synthesis. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Abductive (reasoning) 05:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

One person's, two person's. Terrorist is a terrorist. --Interfase (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So I take it that you'll be creating a Turkish Terrorism article? I await its creation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. --Athenean (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete it sets a precedent of dubious encyclopedic value for the creation of a whole string of similar edit-war magnets. The notion of terrorism is controversial per se and a highly politicised issue even within academia. It is no coincidence that even Palestinian terrorism is simply a redirect for Palestinian political violence. If need be incidents or organisations can be discussed in separate articles. We already do that with the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof faction, the ETA, Aldo Moro, the Munich Massacre etc. There will always be academics describing organisations like the FLN, for instance, or the anti-colonial armed groups either as terrorist groups or as national emancipation movements, why on earth should we subscribe to this or that view by lumping together complex political/social/historical phenomena under generic and simplistic titles? --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Rename somehow per Giorgos. I don't think deletion is the best solution in the presence of various third-party sources. Brand[t] 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Sardur (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep but Rename The topic is clearly important enough to have its own article, and the fact that there is poitical violence in armenia or committed by armenians can clearly be treated in wikipedia without reviling the general Armenian public. The fact that such an article may become a POV battleground is not an argument for deletion and should be disregarded by the closing admin. However per WP:TERRORIST it is clear that the label "Terrorism" should be avoided in the title of the article and only be used in the text when attributed to specific sources. I suggest renaming the article to "Armenian political violence" or similar. I do not see any deletion arguments actually based in policy given here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment; in nominating this article for AfD, I did so assuming that it had been created for POV purposes (being aware that such action contradicts WP:AGF). The edit history of the creator points in that direction. Moreover, its not clear (as stated by other above) what encyclopediatic value this article would have, as relevant material is already included in the ASALA article. As per rename, I'd say that importing the solution used with Palestinian political violence would not be an improvement, since 'Armenian political violence' is so wide that it lacks all meaning (it would, theoretically, include Armenian participation in the Lebanese Civil War as well as violence/repression in contemporary independent Armenia). --Soman (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nominator, and also per WP:SYN, WP:COATRACK. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2009 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Martin (United States Army)

(Find sources: "Daniel Martin (United States Army)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

WP:MILHIST consensus has established that only first level awards (Victoria Cross, Hero of the Soviet Union etc), rather than second level (DSC etc) are inherently notable in isolation. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)

Delete as nominator. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Blomberg for another such article. Looks like there are hundreds of these to be cleaned up once that AfD runs it's course. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, although the subject's service is honorable and commendable, it is notable per WP:GNG, as it is only referenced at this time by a single website (which is nearly copied in whole or part by the article itself), or WP:MILPEOPLE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - No reliable sources give more than trivial coverage, so fails WP:GNG, not to mention the fact that this wqas only a second-tier military decoration. Skinny87 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I feel a bit bad voting delete on this page, but as per Wiki policy I don't think this is up to scratch. Maybe in the future a list could be created of second-tier military decoration awardees DRosin (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:V. Although this individual's actions are highly admirable, being a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross is not quite notable enough in itself per Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, there is an extreme lack of available sources as Skinny87 states. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. He would have to have had at least one other award at this level to be considered for an article unless he did something else notable. A holder of a first tier decoration is inherently notable; a holder of a second tier decoration is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete per established consensus. This award just isn't enough to confer inherent notability. I have encountered dozens or maybe even hundreds of articles like this and I never understood how they could pass the notability standards. It's time for a massive nomination of hundreds to thousands of these articles. If the award is so prevalent that at least one person in a high percentage of small communities have received it, then it's probably too broad for Wikipedia to cover. Royal broil 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think they need mass nominated, they can just be speedied as non-notable per GNG and the WP:MILHISTORY guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 03:43, 27 December 2009 (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. Tone 15:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Blomberg

(Find sources: "Henry Blomberg" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Received a reward for heroism and gallantry, however it's only the Distinguished Service Cross (United States) (I'm not belittling the award, just saying it's not the top award), and has been awarded to over 13,000 other individuals. I'm nominating it because I don't believe someone is inherently notable just because they're received this award. I'd also like to use this as a test case as the article creator (Packerfansam (talk · contribs)), who is doing sterling work, is creating hundreds of these articles and I don't want them to continue doing hard work if they'll end up being deleted due to the time they're putting into it. So tell me, is one of 13,000+ people earning a second tier military award notable? Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross yes, DSC, I don't believe so. Canterbury Tail talk 23:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE notes that only those awarded a nations highest award are notable, or those who win a second highest award on multiple occasions.Canterbury Tail talk 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There are also upwards of 100+ similar articles with the same claims to notability. Canterbury Tail talk 03:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any significant coverage of him. I do not think receiving the second highest award is in itself notable, as it looks right now that is his only claim to notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep The DSC was awarded in fewer numbers than the German Knight's Cross, but I don't think that there have been too many AfDs for winners of that award. Let's establish some parity here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 December 2009
- There is a difference here; the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the highest decoration, while the Distinguished Service Cross is among the second. Also, there is the basis of reliable sources. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  - In any case, I don't think there's a great case for saying a Knight's Cross holder is inherently notable. A holder of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves or above probably is, but not the unadorned Knight's Cross. It was too common (over 7,000 awarded in a single war is just too ubiquitous, compared to 181 Victoria Crosses and 464 Medals of Honor for the same war - I don't really think it can be considered a first tier award in that sense). I would certainly support deletion of an article on a Knight's Cross holder who was solely notable for being a recipient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Although the award of the Distinguished Service Cross is highly admirable, it does not make one notable enough for inclusion per Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly with the extreme lack of sources on the subject aside from the decoration's citation. If there were further sources on the subject's life than perhaps the guidelines would be satisfied, but I do not believe this is so. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Lack of reliable sources with more than a passing mention in it, thus failing WP:GNG. At the heart of it, that's why it fails and should be deleted, although the fact that the recipient only got the DSC (not maligning, a very good achievement) and not something like the Medal of Honor or Victoria Cross doesn't help either. Skinny87 (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. He would have to have had at least one other award at this level to be considered for an article unless he did something else notable. A holder of a first tier decoration is inherently notable; a holder of a second tier decoration is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for individuals Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete as doesn't meet notability standard. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination reasoning. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I wondered about this when I saw the author creating a slew of these articles, but didn't want to be the one to step up and say that they were all non-notable. It's true that WP:ANYBIO says a person who does not meet GNG may still be notable if he "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." In one sense, the Distinguished Service Cross is notable—we have an article on it—but then we have an article on the Purple Heart too, and we've given out 1.3 million of those. So I thoroughly agree that the Distinguished Service Cross doesn't count (without more, obviously; see here). I think the idea of the ANYBIO guideline is to streamline the notability consideration of people who receive or are nominated for awards whose recipients and nominees are generally notable under GNG. But DSC recipients and nominees are generally non-notable under GNG (Henry Blomberg too), so I don't think a case for notability can rest on this award alone. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2009 (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.

[edit] Military Proposed deletions

Task Force Jim (since 24 December 2009)
Navy i'm on a boat (since 22 December 2009)

[edit] Military-related Images and media for Deletion

The following military-related IfD's are currently open for discussion:

[edit] Military-related Miscellany for deletion

The following military-related MfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

[edit] Military-related Templates for Deletion

The following military-related TfD's are currently open for discussion: None at present

[edit] Military-related Categories for Discussion

[edit] Military-related Deletion Review

The following military-related Deletion reviews are currently open for discussion:

Wikipedia:Deletion review#File:Iliria PB.jpg Geo Swan (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[0] Michael M. Gunter, Dept. of Political Science Tennessee Technological University: ARMENIAN TERRORISM IN THE 20TH CENTURY

[1] Pursuing The Just Cause of Their People: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism

[2] Henze, Paul, Goal: Destablization Soviet Agitational Propaganda, Instability and Terrorism in NATO South, (Marina Del Ray, California, American Institute for Security Research, 1981).

[3] Hoffman, Bruce, Terrorism in the United States During 1985, Rand Paper P-7194, (Santa Monica, California 1985).

[4] Szaz, Michael, Armenian Terrorists and the East-West Conflict, Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies (Winter 1983), pp.387-394.

[5] Wilkinson, Paul, Armenian Terrorism, World Today V.39 (September 1983), pp.344-350.

[6] Corsun, Andrew, Armenian Terrorism: A Profile, U.S. Department of State Bulletin, No. 82, (Washington, D.C., August 1982), pp.31-35.

[7] Erich Feigl. Ein Mythos des Terrors. Armenischer Terrorismus, seine Ursachen und Hintergründe. Edition Zeitgeschichte, Freilassing 1986. (german)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Contents

[edit] Military and combat

[edit] Fred Galoff

[edit] Richard K. Hulse

[edit] Potential Gunners Selection Course

[edit] Armenian terrorism

[edit] Daniel Martin (United States Army)

[edit] Henry Blomberg

[edit] Military Proposed deletions

[edit] Military-related Images and media for Deletion

[edit] Military-related Miscellany for deletion

[edit] Military-related Templates for Deletion

[edit] Military-related Categories for Discussion

[edit] Military-related Deletion Review