Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 13

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.

Given the extensive participation in the discussion and its extended stay in the backlog, I see no reason to believe that relisting would yield any different of an outcome. BD2412 T 06:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy J. Edens

Timothy J. Edens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily passes
  WP:GNG, as do most general officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Both Necrothesp and I were notified of the discussion by a third party (not sure why we were chosen. I close AFD1. My question is if this easily passes GNG what specific sources are you relying on for that opinion? Bare assertions carry little weight and the source analysis is detailed enough that you really should explain why you disagree if you want your opinion to count.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I was also notified by a third party. I had made one edit to the article back in 2019, but otherwise don't have any connection to it. --Kbabej (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Third party here. I meant to notify people who made non-trivial edits to the article or who participated in the two previous AfDs and who hadn't already been notified. I missed some people, but I think everyone who ought to receive these messages has now been notified. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eastmain why did you feel such notifications are necessary? You notably missed User:Nick-D. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Necrothesp as you know, one of the requirements of GNG is ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". How is that satisfied here? We lack the most basic biographical detail of him. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nominator. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this just going to be a bare assertion of limited value as per ata or will you describe what sources are meeting the gng and how?
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment - if there is significant coverage in the sources, we seem to be lacking content. The article text tells us four things about him - one of which apparently needs 8 citations to support it. (this is not an invitation to dredge google and fill in dates of every command he held) GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So just ftr, you
    wolf 20:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Wikipedia:Citation overkill is just an essay but "Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word, as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit. " (my emphasis) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not add those citations. Every citation I added corresponds directly to the text it follows. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Thewolfchild Graeme added the citation overkill tag when the page looked like this: [24]. Jamesallain85 you did add all those overkill citations: [25]. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete Based on current sourcing - none of the sources independent of the Army or BG Edens provide significant coverage of him. As a result, WP:BIO is not met. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO as noted by Nick-D. Intothatdarkness 22:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Technically speaking, all newspapers are considered primary sources, but I have added some non government newspaper articles. Other sources I have added have been criticised as they are behind a paywall. However, I would like to point out
  WP:Offline where a book would need to be purchased. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where do you get "all newspapers are considered primary sources" from? Mztourist (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, all newspaper sources created contemporary to the event covered are primary sources. It is the definition of a primary source. So unless a newspaper article is covering something in a historical context it is a primary source.Jamesallain85 (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Provide the WP policy that says that. Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources (How to classify a source) / Primary source. Any article written at the time the event occurred is a primary source. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read down far enough, you need to look at Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources? But as the newspapers that you provided are mere contemporary reports and contain no analysis and so can be considered PRIMARY and of no value for Notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read over that again. "Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources." Unless the newspaper article is analysing a past event, it is primary. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as primary sources being excluded as consideration for notability, if we decide that should be the case, we could probably delete about 50% of biographies on Wikipedia. The issue with living person biographies is that in many cases, secondary sources do not yet exist. I was under the impression that multiple primary sources could also substantiate notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wrong. GNG and N make clear that notability is measured by secondary sources.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What constitutes a secondary source in your opinion? Because there seems to be some confusion on what people consider a secondary source vs an independent source. I know what secondary source is academically and what Wikipedia states, but I also have seen how the label secondary source seems to be applied liberally to primary sources. I recently had another article deleted despite having notability from multiple strong secondary sources, while I see AfDs constantly arguing and winning that newspaper articles are secondary sources, despite the fact they are primary sources, but still demonstrate notability while Wikipedia states they should be secondary sources. Issues with biographical articles on the living is that they are not old enough to be in books talking about history. Just a random example, Carter Ham. His is in my opinion notable, but I would argue every source in his article is a primary source. I can guarantee he isn't the only one, that was one strong reason I felt WP:Soldier was good as it set a guideline of the type of military members that would most likely be written about in the future. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that from an academic perspective, newspapers can be primary, secondary or tertiary, depending on the perspective of the article. Where the article talks about a current event, it is primary, as it lacks the perspective of time to weigh other relevant factors that may become public later. Where an article looks at a situation retrospectively, such as in an obituary, it is mainly a secondary source, as it can consider all matters that arose previously. Where an article reviews the material provided in other publications (such as in a review of non-fiction works) it can act as a tertiary source by summarising points raised by the secondary sources. Just as you believe other editors are too free with classifying primary newspaper articles as secondary, you shouldn't swing the other way and paint all newspaper material as primary. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

significant? No that’s just an argument. How many lines of text is actually in those sources?. Gng requires secondary = not first hand, independent = equals written by someone else and in depth = substantial coverage. Your sources need to be all 3. Can you cite the sources you think meet this criteria and actually list them to be discussed.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment This article meets the same standard as other contemporary generals with wikipedia articles. This article is well sourced, better sourced than many others. Before considering this article for deletion I would urge others to look at similar articles: Carter Ham, Joseph Anderson (U.S. Army general), George Appenzeller, Robert P. Ashley Jr., Francis M. Beaudette, Scott D. Berrier, Michael A. Bills, William H. Brandenburg and many many more. These articles are almost entirely, if not entirely, primary sources. I do not believe that these articles should be deleted nor this one. I think there should be a discussion looking at notability for soldiers, especially for contemporary soldiers because of the practically nonexistent secondary sources. Many have argued that a General grade officer should meet notability guidelines, and I would have to agree. When WP:Solder was in effect it wasn't an issue. I think it would be a shame AfD so many articles do to a bad policy change. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

wolf 19:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a

WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Policy didn't change - WP:Soldier was always over-ruled by the GNG policy and the project acknowledged that. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is a clear case of

WP:GNG. There are numerous independent sources from the Baltimore Sun, the Dothan Eagle, and the Southeast Sun that either outline significant events in Eden's career or have direct input and quotes from Edens on the subject matter. These articles are reliable and demonstrate significant coverage. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Jamesallain85 sure all those pages can be looked at, however almost all of them are more substantial than the Edens page was when nominated and they are all higher ranks than Brigadier General which means its more likely, but by no means certain, that there's more written about them. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Necrothesp and Jamesallain85. That, and I was under the impression we were building an encyclopaedia here. Besides the fact that no policy is irreversibly cast in stone, the constant "does not meet SIGCOV for GNG" arguments are often just opinions that can go either way, often falling to just a couple of guys !voting "keep" or "delete" at any given time. That does not seem like sound a sound policy or a reason to delete useful, encyclopaedic information. (IMHO) -
  wolf 19:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So what is the policy basis for keeping this article. The only source analysis is against the sources in the article and I have asked several times about what sources pass gng and just get met by rhetoric and deflection. Its almost as if the arguments don’t pass muster and you keep votors are just trying to move the goalposts away from policy based discussion.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Maybe the policy needs to be discussed if so many editors obviously disagree with it. I am starting to get the impression there is a "Good Ol' Boys Club" when it comes to AfDs. Standards are not upheld equally, some editors show obvious bias and throw around accusations, and it is just ignored. Anytime I point out there is a precedent, I am accused of WP:Otherstuff. Other articles are relevant if it shows an established precedent of notability, such as rank for instance, or if a double Navy Cross winner is notable. How did we come to the consensus that Aces were automatically notable? Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      We didn't establish a consensus that aces were automatically notable; we established a consensus that this constitutes what we call a credible claim of notability, which is the lowest hurdle that an article needs to clear in order to avoid a speedy deletion at the hands of the new page patrol. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean delete. Blowing away the smoke from the above, it seems there is remarkably little substance in the notability argument once the fallacy that all 1,000-odd of the general officers in the US must be notable by default. Two independent newspaper articles is always going to struggle to constitute notability, especially in a country like the US where it is very hard to argue that genuinely notable people slip through the net. Internal army pages are no more relevant to establishing notability than a company newsletter would be. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count eight independent sources. Ref No. 2, 7, 11, 12, 15, 21, 22, and 23. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edens was not a paper pushing general, he was an Master Army Pilot with combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan and also commanded a two separate brigades in combat. I agree not every Joe with a star should be notable, but he is not just a regular Joe. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But do these eight independent source give significant coverage? So far as I can tell: 2 (Edens as spokesperson - article is not about him?) , 7 (University reporting gist of speech that a guest gave at the university - but only tells us his name, rank and number position), 11 & 12 & 15 & 21 (can't tell because US papers have trouble with GDPR), 22 and 23 (need to sign up to read). GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Newspapers can be a primary source when a reporter discovers news. But they are a secondary source when they report that a particular university has recognized the notability of a person, as is the case here. The university (Troy) trustees made the evaluation of the credentiuals and decided they were notable. Rjensen (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

From the start of that quote statement "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Satisfies
  WP:GNG per mentions in newspapers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Increasingly information about living people such as date of birth are not only unavailable, but inadvisable to post on Wikipedia even if known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was kept at 8 September 2020. The same person nominated it for deletion then and now. If you don't get your way, you shouldn't just keep sending the same article to AFD hoping to get a different outcome. The coverage of him I've read through seems to just be quoting him because of his job position, or the military publication announcing him being put in charge of something mentioning his career information. Is there anything not routine coverage of him? Dream Focus 02:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my nom, the previous AFDs were decided on a misconception of the now deprecated SOLDIER, it is perfectly reasonable for me to AFD it again now over a year later. Mztourist (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I actually think this nomination contains a misstatement of GNG and the definition of sources that are not independent of the subject. US Army sources are not from Edens himself or his family or close friends (which would not be independent of him, of course), they are from the organisation that employs him. The idea of using independent sources is to stop self-published and self-serving material being used as a secondary source. That is not the case with US Army sources on Edens, as the US Army is independent from Edens. The newspaper articles are secondary sources from WP perspective, not primary ones that they would usually be for an academic. There are also assumptions being made about the content of sources editors haven't even seen. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That logic flies in the face of everything I have understood about sourcing. He was an Army officer, so part of the organization that published the information about him, how is that not PRIMARY? Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Mztourist, now you're confusing primary with independent of the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources." An Army source about an Army officer is Primary and not independent. Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or an American source about an American! Where's that guy who said we should source articles about basketball from books on cricket? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that analogy is disingenuous; this guy works for the institution that is the US Army. Naturally the US Army official media will cover him. Coca-Cola press releases do not contribute to the notability of Coca-Cola executives for the same reason. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I dispute your HEY assertion, sources have been added but they do not amount to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Mztourist (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:HEY. In the state the article was in when first nominated I'd have been inclined to vote delete but given the significant expansion it now looks much improved. WCM_email 16:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Are there no book histories of the Iraq War that cover him in any significant way? Without something like that I'd lean delete; this article is mostly official army sources and alumni publications listing
  WP:ROUTINE coverage of career moves. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable because of the awards he won. Just as winning an award for a singer who danced around in their underwear singing in a music video makes them notable, or winning the academy award for being in a war movie adds to actor's claim to notability by Wikipedia standards, so does winning awards/medals for fighting in actual wars. Dream Focus 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's no evidence here that those awards make him notable – anyone can copy-paste some emblems and create a pretty list with them –, the sources for those are almost exclusively the army itself. I'm inclined to agree with
  Avilich (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Re the awards, I'm inclined to agree that there is no evidence that those make him notable. These are not MoHs... @Dream Focus: Which awards are you talking about? or winning the academy award for being in a war movie adds to actor's claim to notability is distinctive because it is an academy award, not any award. The Iraq Campaign Medal is given to any US military member who served for 30+ days in Iraq. I don't think any consensus exists that even recipients of the Legion of Merit are presumed notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Combat Action Badge meant they were in active combat. Bronze Star Medal "awarded for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone." Air Medal "awarded for single acts of heroism or meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight." So yes, notable. The fact that the mainstream media likes to cover attractive famous people do anything at all, instead of actual notable people doing notable things, is irrelevant. More than one way to prove notability. Dream Focus 03:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree with Avilich and Indy beetle, those awards don't satisfy #1 of

      WP:ANYBIO, generally they are "job well done" and 'You were there" medals, not medals for incredible bravery or achievement. The Army hands out the Bronze Star and Air Medal readily, we have hundreds if not thousands of military bios of people with many more Bronze Stars and Air Medals than Edens and that isn't the basis for their notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      The Air Medal is actually awarded by the Army based on time spent flying in a combat zone (one for every six months is the current standard...prior to 2006 or so it was based on flight hours). So it's a blanket award for showing up. It could involve some sort of heroic action...or it might not. The standard Bronze Star is handed out like crazy (there was a general tightening up of policy after the Air Force awarded Bronze Stars to officers in Missouri who were supporting B-2 operations over Kosovo). It's the BS(V) that has some weight. Intothatdarkness 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Much as I share the distaste for the media's obsession for rich nitwits who do nothing but take their parents money and launch a shoe line, we aren't in the position of deciding who is "worthy" of the media's attention and who is not. We have to follow the sources. There are hundreds of thousands of recipients of bronze stars [26], it is a terrible predictor for who has sigcov in reliable sources and who does not. Without his political career, WWII paratrooper

      WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

      ]

• Delete: while there have been a number of gross misinterpretations of policy, I've looked at the sourcing (and yes, a US Army article by a public affairs specialist is essentially a press release and not independent), and only seen this publication's independent, barely in-depth source (though even it is somewhat lacking). Articles that quote him aren't really indicative of notability, non independent sourcing isn't indicative of notability, nor are press releases, and I'm even less convinced local(ish) publications reporting what he said when he spoke somewhere are the kind of coverage that's indicative of notability. News articles repeating word for word what someone did are where they veer into being primary sources, while profiles are more indicative of notability. If policy needs to be changed (as many of the keep votes
  WP:GNG as being met. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I did find mention of him in books on the war in Iraq [27][28][29] (also in the Washington Post [30]) and aviation safety [31]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The second book is about another Edens, and I couldn't find any mention of the subject on the aviation handbook either. The WaPo article only quotes him for a brief report, he is obviously not the subject of the discussion. The relevant section of that article is copied verbatim by book one, which has nothing else to offer. The third book is unavailable for preview.
  Avilich (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 4 and 7 are basically the same WaPo quote. As Avilich pointed out 5 is by a different Edens as is 8 Handbook of Aviation Human Factors. Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The reasons offered for keeping are a mixture of misstatements or misinterpretations of policy, citing deprecated essay criteria, or misinterpretation of sources. There is a fundamental lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The coverage in reliable sources is either not independent or not significant and the converge that is significant is not independent. "Significant" in this context means that a source needs to be significantly about the article subject, which the offered independent RS coverage is not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So no, there is no misstating or misinterpreting of policy here except by those who, for some bizarre reason, think that an encyclopaedia is best served by deleting as much information as possible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That "bizarre reason" would be the

WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy, which supersedes the continued attempts to resurrect NSOLDIER criteria. The !vote should make it clear that the independent coverage is trivial mentions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The only thing the !vote shows is that there is no clear consensus. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (my previous comments were comments). I am not convinced that the coverage in the sources given at this point in time (and that I can access) of the article meet GNG requirements. The coverage in newspapers is routine or scant (doesn't meet the "more than a trivial mention" hurdle) or where there is detail it is from non-independent sources (as said above much is the equivalent of company internal newsletters, or is only available because of the Army's requirement to open access, or is press releases and stories given to local media ).

One might err on the cautionary side, give the sources the benefit of the doubt, and retain because of the article content itself - but the article content is thin. We could discount much of the early life which is essentially sourced to school yearbooks (again not independent). The career is a list of "he was given this appointment", "he was given that appointment" "he was promoted" for the most part never saying what he did in these posts, or why he was promoted. "safety iniatives" - that was his job, "Critical of budget cuts" unsurprising. The biggest section of the article is the display of the various career awards with (to my taste oversize) pictorial representations of those. It is, to my mind an example of what can happen when one tries to improve an article as alternative to deletion - you hit a wall because there is no content out there and there is no content because the subject is just not that notable to be recorded. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that what makes him most notable is the coverage he had as commander of 12th CAB. Apache helicopters under his command killed Iraqi civilians and he responded. It was documented in The Washington Post, which only aids in arguing for notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet that has never featured on the page (and still doesn't) and you've not raised it before. Mztourist (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think no. 4 The Wilmington Post (via subscription access archive) is the reference in question. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did rummage around and I found this on the Washington Post website which includes these 2 quotes:

1. "It's not Hollywood and it's not 110 percent perfect," said Col. Timothy J. Edens, the commander of the 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, of the accuracy of his unit's strikes. "It is as precise as very hardworking soldiers and commanders can make it. These criminals do not operate in a clean battle space. It is occupied by civilians, law-abiding Iraqis."
2. "As in all wars, when things go wrong, bad things happen," said Edens, the colonel. "There's no doubt that there have been innocent civilians killed in this ugly war."

That's the sum total of the mention of Edens across four pages.( An injured civilian gets about the same column inches. And an Apache pilot more than 25% of the text). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then should I write an article about the Apache pilot? I guess it would pass WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seriously, the sources are inadequate and so many of the keep votes are ignoring actual policy and consensus they should be deleted.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  talk) 20:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The fundamental issue here is that, in my view, sources establishing a pass of GNG have still not been presented and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a lack of independent sourcing, admittedly. However, I'm happy with stories like this one and thisn one and there is evidently enough sourcing available to write a verifiable article. I disagree with the notion that an article isn't independent because it contains quotes - as long as there is commentary alongside the quotes, I feel we can consider that commentary as independent.

  talk) 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Seriously? The first story is an opinion piece with a quote from him about motorbike safety while the second is him saying that budget cuts will affect safety, hardly specific detail about him. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet
  WP:SOLDIER, before it was retired, and there's nothing better. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as a whole, the sourcing is sufficient, especially the newspaper coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEY is all well and good, but that's saying that the article now meets GNG. Given that it seems to be contested whether that is really the case, maybe it's a good idea to talk about why it now meets GNG, rather than just repeating wikilinks to WP:HEY? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:HEY Lightburst (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What is the evidence that the awards are significant, and what is your reply to the comment immediately above yours?
  Avilich (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lightburst his awards have been discussed above already, none are significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2021 (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.

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. ✗plicit 11:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BOB 03 2021

BOB 03 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This articles isn't needed. Most of the content is copied from