Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel P. De Bow Jr.

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 delete. A close call by the headcount alone, but the weight of policy-based arguments is clearly in favour of deletion. If nobody can show that there's actually significant coverage, meeting one point of WP:MILNG (a WikiProject essay) does not trump the WP:GNG. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel P. De Bow Jr.

[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)

At Wikipedia:Help_desk#Request_page_deletion someone claiming to be the subject of the article asked that it be deleted. Though that is not a sufficient reason per policy, the fact is that the article is only sourced to NOAA (i.e. not an independent source), and I cannot find anything in the way of WP:GNG online.

Note that rear admiral is a flag officer rank which means WP:SOLDIER #2 is met, but (1) special notability criteria do not trump GNG, and (2) it might be dubious to apply the "flag officer" criteria to groups which are closer to research labs than to fighting units even if they use army ranks. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's an Admiral fgs. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER. Although the USA has a separate organisation for this function, its personnel do hold naval ranks and in most countries they would be naval officers and therefore WP:SOLDIER would apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think we shouldn't keep an article just because it passes a single part of a subject matter guideline while failing GNG, and what I am seeing about him in a cursory search does not look good for passing GNG, he shows up in a surprising number of places. Bush attempted to appoint him as a commissioner of the Mississippi river, he published at least one paper during his time at NOAA, and he seems to have given congressional testimony a couple times. I will keep looking for more sources in the hopes of finding at least 1 secondary, significant, independent source. Rockphed (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay, I am finding zero sources that aren't trivial mentions. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that somebody who seems to have spent their career running radar and hydrophones managed to evade the scrutiny of the press. Rockphed (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commander of one of the Uniformed services of the United States. Clearly meets #3 of WP:SOLDIER.Goldsztajn (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn: I doubt WP:SOLDIER #3 was intended to apply to the commanding officer of a less than 400 people non-fighting unit, so the argument seems pretty weak to me. I am not sold to SOLDIER #2 but it makes more sense. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tigraan:Seems that there is clear consensus and practice that all the commanders of all the branches of the Uniformed services of the United States have articles. Strictly defined, yes, this service does not come under US military departments, but the personnel can be militarised. The service itself is clearly notable, the size (or lack thereof) of the officer corps is therefore not relevant to determine notability of the subject of the article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the size of the corps is not relevant to the notability of the commanding officer, but it is relevant to evaluate the validity of arguments by association. "The CSA has an article hence the director of the NOAACOC should have one too because they are at parallel spots in the organigram" is not a sane argument because of the large discrepancy between the two roles. That's not exactly the argument you are making, but adherence to WP:SOLDIER#3 in the case of the latter case seems misguided when the practice was (in all likelihood) established while thinking of the former.

Also, the size of NOAACOC is not relevant, but neither is its notability when evaluating the notability of its commander. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This roles is not such that it creates an actual pass of GNG, so we should respect this person's desire for privacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that we have no proof that the request came from the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at the history of the article, and the discussion above, it's clear that the subject of the article, or someone close to him, has actually requested deletion. Since there's lack of significant coverage, I'm going with deletion. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 15 October 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.