Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tate Westbrook

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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Westbrook

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and all applicable WP:SNG John from Idegon (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely, as commander of the Navy task force that launched the 2017 Shayrat missile strike, he would meet WP:MILPERSON #4 "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The key term there is "major". Notable =/= major. John from Idegon (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the key word is "significant". "Major" is an example, following "such as". RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that the 2017 Shayrat missile strike was the first combative strike by the US against Syria, doesn't that make it a tad more important than merely notable? I could understand your argument if Westbrook commanded the task force that launched the 7th out of 38 missile strikes, or some arbitrary number like that. Also, it should be noted that IVORK had similar concerns early on, but ultimately found it acceptable under #4. Woko Sapien (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I accept WP:MILPERSON(4) and add possibly (5) - commanding a task force in battle with a captain's billet (5 - has capital ship, however many modern task forces do not have a capital ship at their core - a destroyer squadron should fit the bill in relation to land/air formations there). Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.