Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan B. Banister


 * 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Alan B. Banister

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. While his rank satisfies #2 of the SOLDIER ESSAY, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS, just being a Rear Admiral is not inherently notable without significant achievements/coverage Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER #2 as a flag officer, which consensus says makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article." even if they meet one of the six presumptions under SOLDIER. You can add Hans Schwedler, deleted yesterday, to your list. Mztourist (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If WP:SOLDIER is "just an essay" then it cannot simultaneously be a valid basis for deletion, as strenuously argued here and many other previous AfDs. Kges1901 (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I always state WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG to make it clear that just meeting a presumption under SOLDIER isn't adequate without SIGCOV in multiple RS as required by both SOLDIER (though you choose to ignore it) and GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Schwedler was a police officer and SS administrative officer, not a military officer. Shouldn't have been deleted, of course, but the usual suspects were obviously as determined as usual. The fact you're crowing about it just hammers the point home that deletion is your primary goal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lacked SIGCOV in multiple RS as required for anyone. "usual suspects" "crowing" just more of your personal attacks Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out that you seem to be proud of yourself when you get something deleted. Not really in the spirit of Wikipedia in my opinion. I joined Wikipedia to expand knowledge, not delete it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just pointing out you frequently make veiled personal attacks on those who disagree with you and continue to push your own idiosyncratic interpretation of SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Has entry in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, thus meeting WP:ANYBIO #3, in addition to meeting WP:SOLDIER #1 and #2 due to being a flag officer with two Navy Crosses (multiple second level awards). Kges1901 (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So he actually passes WP:SOLDIER on two counts. Didn't notice that. Makes the nomination even more ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Still lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:SOLDIER - flag officer; WP:ANYBIO ie. "received a well-known and significant award or honor" - awarded two Navy Crosses, plus the Peruvian Cross of Naval Merit (see here); WP:BASIC ie. multiple sources - NYT obit (from the article), The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography (from above). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER on two counts as a flag officer and for earning two Navy crosses; WP:ANYBIO though having an entry in The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, and WP:GNG through having widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not so sure the flag-officer bar is crossed as the article states it was a 'graveyard promotion', a practice where a retired officer in good standing is advanced one rank on death, i.e. he never wore stars while in service/alive. But it contributes to the potential notability; two Navy Crosses is a SOLDIER pass, which contributes definitively/further, and there's just enough on the reference rack to convince me that GNG is also met, as well as ANYBIO as mentioned above. Each individual assessment of notability is somewhat weakish but the sum of their parts is that this individual is, in fact, notable. The article is somewhat messy (especially the lede) but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.