Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cozzalio

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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cozzalio

Alan Cozzalio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

He doesn't meet any of the 6 criteria of WP:SOLDIER. In relation to WP:GNG, there are major WP:SIGCOV issues. Searching the biography ISBN on Google Books it states that the publisher is CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform which appears to be self-published and not Lighthorse Publishing Company as stated on the page, while Amazon shows no information. Reference 1 is Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association which is not WP:RS. Reference 3 is the VVA review of the book. The other sources all fall into "...only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article...". Mztourist (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject of a independent published book. The book was published in 2015, more than two decades after Cozzalio's death - clearly no direct relationship, although it appears his brother provided some photographs. Book was published by Lighthorse Publishing according to the book itself. The book received an award in the 2016 Independent Publisher Book Awards in the category Best Adult Non-Fiction Personal E-Book [1], and the author has published at least one other book. This book carries the Amazon rankings #198 in Vietnam War Biographies (Books), #272 in Military Aviation History (Books), and #172 in Military History (Books).

Furthermore, I would argue he is close enough to WP:SOLDIER#1 to make an exception for that. He has the second highest award - Distinguished Service Cross, once and so many other awards (Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross (4 times), Soldier's Medal, etc.) that I would consider them collectively equivalent to a second Distinguished Service Cross. MB 03:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the book is its reliability, which, as an independently published book, is questionable. Book rankings are irrelevant. One DSC and other lesser awards don't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER. In any event WP:SOLDIER is just certain presumptions of notability and as I said above there are GNG concerns. Cozzalio appears to have served honorably but unremarkably. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rankings are not irrelevant; they are an indication of reliability, which you question. Fewer people would purchase an unreliable book. Given that there are millions of books published and listed for sale, I think these rankings show the book is well accepted. It has also received 183 customer reviews on Amzazon, most of them 5-star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB (talk • contribs)

The rankings are not an indication of reliability at all! They are based on sales numbers, which aren't particularly high for any of the categories. The customer reviews are purely subjective and can be manipulated. Reliability requires editorial and peer review, which for an independently published book is questionable.Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I tend to agree with User:MB. His accumulated "lesser" medals along with a second- and a third-level decoration are sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that does not meet #1 of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm aware of that. But I think it does meet WP:COMMONSENSE. Wikipedia notability is not defined by strict criteria, but by opinion at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK then please apply your WP:COMMONSENSE and justify why he is notable. Because holding a DSC and some lesser medals doesn't meet notability. Is there SIGCOV in RS? Mztourist (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already clearly stated my reasons for believing he is notable. No point in you demanding that I do so again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The book does not fall into reliably published category, so it would be at the level that a person wrote an autobiography about someone and self-published it. I couldn't find much information about that publishing company. Graywalls (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would conclude from reading Independent publishing that while such a book may be unreliable, it isn't necessarily. MB 22:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reliable indication of notability. In Google Scholars, there's no indication that book has been cited in other reliably published materials, and there are no other books that really talk about him. There is a US Military recruiting office publication, which confirms he existed but there's no indication of notability that warrants a stand-alone page. Customer reviews of a book has absolutely no bearing on suitability as a source. I couldn't find anything about the obscure Lighthorse Publishing Company either. Graywalls (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately, the main source is a self-published book. CreateSpace, Amazon's self publishing platform, is clearly listed on the the book's copyright page. Amazon allows authors the option of creating a publishing company name and this appears to have happened here. The book is said to have a Bronze Medal from the Independent Publishers Awards. These awards require entry fees and are noted for being primarily designed to profit the sponsors of the contest. The criteria for judging is greatly based on the outward appearance of the book. High marks go for the cover and overall design. There is no guarantee the book will even be read. The Cozzalio book does have a very nice cover and could be well written, but it is self published and that it not a reliable source for WP. I cannot find much of anything else about Mr. Cozzalio, even in newspaper archives. I have no doubt he was a fine soldier and greatly admired by the men with whom he served, but I think there should be more reliable sources found in order to prove notability and justify a WP article. Roam41 (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the above arguments. It's not appropriate that our main source is a self-published book. We don't have significant coverage by reliable sources here, and so deletion is the right call. It's certainly frustrating since this solider clearly was well-known in his community and deserved to be so due to his achievements. Yet, as has been found multiple times in these discussions, being well-known in the general sense isn't the same thing as technically being notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:14, 22 April 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.