Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Alan B. Banister: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:08, 13 January 2021 editMztourist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users72,114 edits →Alan B. Banister← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:32, 20 January 2021 edit undoDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,508 edits →Alan B. Banister: Closed as keep (XFDcloser) 
(14 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ===]===
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
<!--Template:Afd top


Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. ] (]) 14:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
⚫ ===]===
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|Alan B. Banister}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>) :{{la|Alan B. Banister}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>)
Line 9: Line 14:
*'''Delete''' does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.] (]) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC) *'''Delete''' does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.] (]) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Clearly meets the criteria of ] #2 as a flag officer, which ]. -- ] (]) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Clearly meets the criteria of ] #2 as a flag officer, which ]. -- ] (]) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
::The consensus is that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." even if they meet one of the six presumptions under SOLDIER. You can add Hans Schwedler deleted yesterday to your list. ] (]) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC) ::The consensus is that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." even if they meet one of the six presumptions under SOLDIER. You can add Hans Schwedler, deleted yesterday, to your list. ] (]) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:::If ] is "just an essay" then it cannot simultaneously be a valid basis for deletion, as strenuously argued ] and many other previous AfDs. ] (]) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
::::I always state WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG to make it clear that just meeting a presumption under SOLDIER isn't adequate without SIGCOV in multiple RS as required by both SOLDIER (though you choose to ignore it) and GNG. ] (]) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Schwedler was a police officer and SS administrative officer, not a military officer. Shouldn't have been deleted, of course, but the usual suspects were obviously as determined as usual. The fact you're crowing about it just hammers the point home that deletion is your primary goal. -- ] (]) 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
::::Lacked SIGCOV in multiple RS as required for anyone. "usual suspects" "crowing" just more of your personal attacks ] (]) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Just pointing out that you seem to be proud of yourself when you get something deleted. Not really in the spirit of Misplaced Pages in my opinion. I joined Misplaced Pages to expand knowledge, not delete it. -- ] (]) 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Just pointing out you frequently make veiled personal attacks on those who disagree with you and continue to push your own idiosyncratic interpretation of SOLDIER. ] (]) 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Has entry in , thus meeting ] #3, in addition to meeting ] #1 and #2 due to being a flag officer with two Navy Crosses (multiple second level awards). ] (]) 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
**So he actually passes ] on two counts. Didn't notice that. Makes the nomination even more ridiculous. -- ] (]) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. ] (]) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', meets ] - flag officer; ] ie. "received a well-known and significant award or honor" - awarded two ]es, plus the Peruvian ] (); ] ie. multiple ] - (from the article), ''The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography'' (from above). ] (]) 15:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' Meets ] on two counts as a flag officer and for earning ''two'' Navy crosses; ] though having an entry in ''The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography'', and ] through having widespread coverage in reliable sources. ] ] 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. I'm not so sure the flag-officer bar is crossed as the article states it was a 'graveyard promotion', a practice where a retired officer in good standing is advanced one rank on death, i.e. he never wore stars while in service/alive. But it ''contributes'' to the potential notability; two Navy Crosses ''is'' a SOLDIER pass, which contributes definitively/further, and there's ''just'' enough on the reference rack to convince me that GNG is ''also'' met, as well as ANYBIO as mentioned above. Each ''individual'' assessment of notability is somewhat weakish but the sum of their parts is that this individual is, in fact, notable. The article is somewhat messy (especially the lede) but ]. - ] <sub>]</sub> 04:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Bushranger. ] ] 06:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 14:32, 20 January 2021

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. Daniel (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Alan B. Banister

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Alan B. Banister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. While his rank satisfies #2 of the SOLDIER ESSAY, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS, just being a Rear Admiral is not inherently notable without significant achievements/coverage Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The consensus is that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." even if they meet one of the six presumptions under SOLDIER. You can add Hans Schwedler, deleted yesterday, to your list. Mztourist (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If WP:SOLDIER is "just an essay" then it cannot simultaneously be a valid basis for deletion, as strenuously argued here and many other previous AfDs. Kges1901 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I always state WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG to make it clear that just meeting a presumption under SOLDIER isn't adequate without SIGCOV in multiple RS as required by both SOLDIER (though you choose to ignore it) and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Schwedler was a police officer and SS administrative officer, not a military officer. Shouldn't have been deleted, of course, but the usual suspects were obviously as determined as usual. The fact you're crowing about it just hammers the point home that deletion is your primary goal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Lacked SIGCOV in multiple RS as required for anyone. "usual suspects" "crowing" just more of your personal attacks Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Just pointing out that you seem to be proud of yourself when you get something deleted. Not really in the spirit of Misplaced Pages in my opinion. I joined Misplaced Pages to expand knowledge, not delete it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Just pointing out you frequently make veiled personal attacks on those who disagree with you and continue to push your own idiosyncratic interpretation of SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER on two counts as a flag officer and for earning two Navy crosses; WP:ANYBIO though having an entry in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, and WP:GNG through having widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not so sure the flag-officer bar is crossed as the article states it was a 'graveyard promotion', a practice where a retired officer in good standing is advanced one rank on death, i.e. he never wore stars while in service/alive. But it contributes to the potential notability; two Navy Crosses is a SOLDIER pass, which contributes definitively/further, and there's just enough on the reference rack to convince me that GNG is also met, as well as ANYBIO as mentioned above. Each individual assessment of notability is somewhat weakish but the sum of their parts is that this individual is, in fact, notable. The article is somewhat messy (especially the lede) but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2021 (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.