Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ablitt

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. Tone 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Ablitt

[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:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DCM and other lesser medals doesn't satisfy #1 of
WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. The sources are almost all primary or not actually about this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a second-level decoration and two third-level decorations are sufficient for notability. Certainly passes my notability standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your standards are not Wikipedia's standards per WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My standards on honours are my informed opinion and have served me well over many AfDs and many years of editing Wikipedia. Remember,
    WP:BURO. You need to stop being so hidebound and try a little common sense (i.e. think exactly why two second-level awards are notable but one second-level award and two third-level awards are not? Because they are, so there, is not a valid answer!). It works much better than applying some monolithic rules that don't actually exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - It amuses me how when a rule suits you you follow it and when it doesn't its IAR or Commonsense. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It amuses me how you're so hung up on "rules" that you can't see that sometimes you just have to apply logic and common sense instead! We don't even have rules on Wikipedia. We have opinions and consensuses. Note that I'm not speaking from an
        WP:IAR as a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        If someone meets the lowest level rank of #2 of WP:SOLDIER, that's it as far as you're concerned, without considering SIGCOV, but for #1 you burrow down into 2nd and 3rd tiers awards to try to justify notability. If you're so convinced you're right then take it to MilHist and see if you get any support for a change to #1, if not then stop trying to push it here every time it comes up with the fallback WP arguments of IAR and Commonsense. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It is, because officers of that rank are clearly notable, despite your attempts to claim they're not. As I said, AfD is about opinion. This is my informed opinion. Yet once again you try to suggest that Wikipedia has set-in-stone rules and opinions are not valid. You may be uncomfortable with Wikipedia not having rules. I am not. stop trying to push it here every time it comes up. A bizarre statement, given I don't believe this issue has really come up before. Please enlighten me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, officers are only presumed to be notable, they must have SIGCOV, which you always choose to ignore. I have seen your IAR and Commonsense arguments frequently here on AFD, why are you denying it? Mztourist (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're so convinced you're right then take it to MilHist and see if you get any support for a change to #1, if not then stop trying to push it here every time it comes up with the fallback WP arguments of IAR and Commonsense. We have not had a debate relating to this issue before, so how can I possibly be "trying to push it here every time it comes up"? As to rank, I would point out that you have failed every time you have tried to claim that officers of one-star rank and above are not notable. So consensus (yes, consensus) would appear to be with me, not you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't need to take #1 to MilHist because its clear that they need SIGCOV and usually people manage to find some mentions that they regard as meeting the criteria, meanwhile you continue to push your medal opinion.Mztourist (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you obviously aren't actually reading before you respond and seem close to indulging in personal attacks, I'll leave it there. I have my opinion; you have yours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:59, 22 July 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.