This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mztourist (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 13 January 2021 (→Alan B. Banister). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 15:05, 13 January 2021 by Mztourist (talk | contribs) (→Alan B. Banister)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Alan B. Banister
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- 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)
- Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER #2 as a flag officer, which consensus says makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 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. Mztourist (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)