Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Amundson

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 all excluding James Megellas, Zachary Rhyner and John Shuman. The last two can be nominated separately per Lankiveil's request. Megellas' status was that there was a consensus to keep.

I understand why this was done as a group nomination in this circumstance, but I can also understand the argument that sometimes one or two good 'babies' get thrown out with the proverbial bathwater. In this situation, though, per Lankiveil's comments, I think the probability is unlikely. If anyone wants to contest a singular one of these on a notability point of difference other than the medal, please ping me on my talk page and I'm open to undeleting that one article out of the batch and letting you have a go at improving it (at my discretion). Otherwise, the argument that being a medal recipient at this level alone is not notable enough independent of other notability claims is upheld in this discussion and hence the articles deleted. Daniel (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Amundson

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

Time to knock these articles on the head en masse once and for all. They are all about people whose only claim to notability is winning a single second-level gallantry decoration (sometimes not even that), contrary to WP:SOLDIER, which says that without another good reason for notability it requires at least two second-level decorations for an individual to be regarded as notable. For the most part, these articles consist of little more than the award citation, and those which do contain more information do not contain anything to establish notability. They were all created by the same editor and all are about people who hailed from Wisconsin. This isn't to take away anything from the gallantry of these men, but WP:SOLDIER, although not an official guideline, is widely accepted and for good reason. It has been widely applied and there's no reason to make an exception for any of these gentlemen.

A couple also have a third level or lower gallantry decoration, but that makes no difference to the notability requirements. A few (Edgar Colladay, Lester Mykel Conger, Ronald C. Prei, John Shuman, Christian J. Vogt) didn't even receive a second-level decoration, but only a third- or lower level decoration. In the interests of fairness, I should highlight three for whom greater claims of notability have been made: James Megellas is said to have been "the most-decorated officer in the history of the 82nd Airborne Division" (I don't personally think that the most decorated officer of a particular formation is notable), but still only received a DSC, a Silver Star and a nomination for the Medal of Honor (nominations don't count - many people have been nominated for the highest honour and received a lower honour). Zachary Rhyner is said to be " the first living, and second ever, Combat Controller to receive the Air Force Cross", which I don't see is particularly relevant: the first person in a particular specialisation to win an award may possibly be notable (and may not be); the second person is not. John Shuman was only awarded the DSM, but was a colonel and seems to have been a senior staff officer, although not of general officer rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I picked a couple at random, and my first impression is that a lack of sourcing is a reason to propose deletion. That and that the entries are stubs built around the specific citation. That said, WP:Soldier is a guidance that that only the highest level awards are likely to be notable of themselves, due to the sourcing that is expected to be found. I emphasize those words because if one of theses individuals has been extensively written about - just for that award-earning incident alone - then they would pass GNG and warrant an article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read all the articles, I think it's highly unlikely that any of them will have been written about beyond the usual local/genealogical/memorial stuff that usually appears in the "local boy makes good" mould, which is not really sufficient for notability (if it is then we can assume that any American serviceman decorated or killed since the internet started is going to be notable, which they're clearly not and would make a mockery of Wikipedia's goal to be an encyclopaedia instead of a memorial). James Megellas is a possible exception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the exclusion - James Megellas has a Medal of Honour. (I've already voted delete for the rest). Neonchameleon (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he doesn't have a Medal of Honor. If he did I wouldn't have nominated him for deletion! He's been nominated for one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, sorry. There's still enough there that I'm keeping him as an exclusion to the delete listing. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've checked a dozen of them. None appear notable beyond the award listing. I believe that a number of the individuals could be notable, but none of them have demonstrated they are. So I'm going for block deletion. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked at half a dozen at random. They seem to be rote creations of second-level award recipients. While only an essay, I'm okay with the take of the military history project that special notability derives from multiple second-level awards. I don't like lists of nominations that are this long, it's not really possible to check them individually without investing an hour that nobody has, but I trust the nominator's word that these are peas from the same pod. Fails GNG, fails to meet informal SNG consensus. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly object to bundling of nominations - please list separately. This is judging people by medal or rank, and not by coverage. My sense is that some of these should be kept. The idea that you either have to be a general or be awarded a Medal of Honor and there's a line drawn under this which Gandalf stands and shouts "They shall not pass" regardless of how much coverage there is is plainly ridiculous. One is intrigued at how the Wikiproject cricket guys are inclusionist to the point where they keep anyone whose ever played 1st class cricket, thus including a heck of a lot of barely notable people, and yet the military guys are so deletionist that they will vote to delete articles on people with coverage elsewhere. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete except James Megellas. The other ones that I checked were all cookie cutter articles that have almost no content. They should be deleted because they don't meet WP:GN and are lacking multiple reliable sources. Megallas' article has the sourcing to prove why he should have an article. Royal broil 03:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except James Megellas, Zachary Rhyner and John Shuman, which should be listed and discussed separately. Remaining biographies are of people who did their duty and did a good job it seems, but do not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - I am fine with the Keep on James Megellas — as a memoirist he may well be in a different category. Carrite (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2013 (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.