Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Edens[edit]

[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)

This page was nominated for deletion in 2019. While his rank of Brigadier General satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is only a presumption that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" however that is not the case here and so he fails WP:GNG. I would also draw everyone's attention to this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Commodores and brigadiers, that shows that just acheiving the lowest flag rank is not an automatic pass on GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOLDIER. This recent trend of nominating articles for deletion even though they satisfy accepted notability guidelines (and yes, WP:SOLDIER is one) is getting a little tedious. And the conclusion of the discussion cited above certainly wasn't that one-star officers don't count. In actual fact, it wasn't even about that subject, but about whether the guideline should specifically include Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores (who aren't technically general or flag officers, but hold equivalent rank). I would also note that the previous AfD on this article, which was almost unanimous keep, was only nine months ago. Why are we having another? To beat those of us who approve of WP:SOLDIER into submission? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because WP:SOLDIER is being misrepresented by you. A low tier flag officer like Edens who lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS does not meet GNG and does not warrant a page. The discussion is relevant because it addresses those issues and disproves your claimed consensus that just acheiving one star rank is a pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You should also read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography the discussion which led to the WP:SOLDIER essay, particularly the comment 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." Mztourist (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - And? You quote a single comment because it supports your particular point of view. That doesn't make it gospel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You think that he has significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources? Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again, you have to be reminded that a presumption of notability is not a presumption of non-notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again, you have to be reminded that meeting one of the 6 heads of WP:SOLDIER is just a presumption that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources", it is not an automatic pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2020 (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.