Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Acton: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:45, 12 March 2010

John C. Acton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no cited sources (there is a link in the "references" section, but it is broken). The page also does not seem to meet Notability Guidelines. WikiPedia clearly states that uncited biographical articles are clearly against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 226Trident (talk • contribs) 2010/02/22 23:34:16 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hard one here, as some of the things described in his article would suggest he might be notable. Can someone wanting to save the article try sourcing it? -RobertMel (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just another flag officer. No special achievements, combat command, or notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flag officers are notable. Article now has sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is no longer a flag officer, and 1 of the sources is a broken link and the other barely mention him. Anyways, hes not very decorated or anything. 226Trident 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He only has eight rows of ribbons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Question~~Keep - 226Trident - What do you mean by: He is no longer a flag officer? Are you implying that retired/dead admirals and generals are no longer flag officers. Unless they were officially demoted, retired officers in the U.S. Military will always carry the honor and respect of the rank they earned in the service of their country. BTW: Hawkeye is right about Flag Officer notability--Mike Cline (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder whether he did anything notable in civilian life, since he was a reservist for part of his Coast Guard career. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkeye. --Baron Larf 07:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not aware of any guideline that says flag officers are automatically notable, nor those with X number of medals. Paucity of sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well now you are. MILHIST guidelines say that a subject is notable if they held a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, no. It states "It has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MILHIST guideline and recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think the MILHIST guideline takes into account that we previously have not held US Brigadier Generals presumably notable, but only Major Generals and above (and their equivalents elsewhere--the US Brigadier General is the UK Brigadier, who is not usually considered a general officer, & it would be anomalous to consider one but not the other notable. This does not however impact the present article, which is about a Rear Admiral, which I think generally ranks as the equivalent to Major General. And I just mention that though =we usually do follow guidelines for the WikiProjects, we do not need to , unless the community as a whole agrees--even the wikiprojects of the highest quality, such as MILHIST, are not autonomous. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MILHIST is not a WP guideline and should not be cited as such in an AfD. However, I think that a military officer of this seniority is unlikely to be unnotable. But the sources still need to be there and they need to cross the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Here, the government, military and alumni sources obviously don't count as reliable. What's left plainly isn't significant. The importance of reliable (non-self published) sources is that as a tertiary source, wikipedia's reliability depends on the reliability of the secondary sources it uses. If there are no reliable sources about a subject, wikipedia should not have an article about the subject because the article will itself be inherently unreliable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the top of WP:MILMOS, it has been accepted into the WP:MOS which is a WP guideline. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 *'''Comment''' I do not think the MILHIST guideline takes into account that we previously have not held US Brigadier Generals presumably notable, but only Major Generals and above (and their equivalents elsewhere--the US Brigadier General is the UK Brigadier, who is not usually considered a general officer, & it would be anomalous to consider one but not the other notable. This does not however impact the present article, which is about a Rear Admiral, which I think generally ranks as the equivalent to Major General. And I just mention that though =we usually do follow guidelines for the WikiProjects, we do not need to , unless the community as a whole agrees--even the wikiprojects of the highest quality, such as MILHIST, are not autonomous.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 05:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' MILHIST is ''not'' a WP guideline and should not be cited as such in an AfD. However, I think that a military officer of this seniority is unlikely to be unnotable. But the sources still need to be there and they need to cross the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources". Here, the government, military and [http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/alumni/john-acton alumni] sources obviously don't count as reliable. What's left plainly isn't significant. The importance of reliable (non-self published) sources is that as a tertiary source, wikipedia's reliability depends on the reliability of the secondary sources it uses. If there are no reliable sources about a subject, wikipedia should not have an article about the subject because the article will itself be inherently unreliable. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
+**Look at the top of [[WP:MILMOS]], it has been accepted into the [[WP:MOS]] which '''''is''''' a WP guideline. -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 02:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)