Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altin Gysman


 * 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   redirect to 6 South African Infantry Battalion. j⚛e deckertalk 17:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Altin Gysman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The primary requirement for notability is "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." WP:SOLDIER goes on to provide guidance of the kind of person who is likely to have sufficient coverage, but that doesn't mean if they are not that kind of person they haven't received sufficient coverage. Gysman is covered by Grocott's Mail, The Sunday Times and SA Soldier.  So it is clear that Gysman  has "received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" Wayne Jayes (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously, as the creator of the page. As above, the rank etc issues are guidelines, the fact that he was exposed to the media is what makes him notable under those criteria. The fact that he had a unique command in a unique operation should count towards that too. BoonDock (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 6 South African Infantry Battalion. In searching for content about the subject, there are multiple mentions of the subject in non-primary or secondary reliable sources, that being said most of the sources mention the subject as part of the unit which the subject commands. I have found no reliable sources that are tertiary to the subject, where the subject has received significant coverage and is the primary topic of the content, therefore, the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As for WP:SOLDIER, the statement "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." comes directly from GNG, I should know I helped write SOLDIER. It means, that even if the subject does not meet the criteria set forth in SOLDIER, if the subject meets GNG, the article subject is notable. In this case the subject does not appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in SOLDIER and does not meet GNG. Therefore, at this time the best that can be done other than deletion is to change this article into a redirect towards an embedded list of commanders of the unit which the subject is a commander of, as most of the reliable sources that I have found about this article, are about the unit not the unit's commander, as its primary topic.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there are very few articles on Wikipedia that would survive your very strict interpretation of the guidelines.Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have seen several South African military articles come up for AfD recently. Don't know why, but perhaps there are in-depth reliable sources in languages other than English, that might cause difficulty in finding sources in my search. Either way, without meeting the criteria set forth in SOLDIER, or meeting GNG directly, I cannot support retaining this article as a stand alone name in the mainspace. If the reliable sources can be found to verify the subject meets GNG, I would be happy to reconsider my current opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @RightCowLeftCoast I could live with that. BoonDock (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added the 6 South African Infantry Battalion section to the page and duplicated some of the Gysman info there. Comments appreciated.. BoonDock (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there past commanders that can be verified?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject has not received "significant coverage" in reliable sources (not a single book reference that I could find and nothing on Scholar). As such he is not notable per the WP:GNG. Also happy with a redirect per RightCowLeftCoast, I guess it might be a valid search time. Anotherclown (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Lieutenant-colonels, battalion commanders or otherwise, are not usually considered to be notable. The only coverage of him is routine stuff relating to him doing his job. Nothing makes him stand out from the countless thousands of other officers who have held his rank over the centuries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect per . I find that this sentence from the article indicates that he is just another mid-rank soldier doing his job competently for his country: "Col Gysman has attended all the required military courses for his rank and post." Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - I'm not seeing the sufficiently significant and multiple independent coverage about the subject. eg The South African Times includes short quotes from the subject, but the article is about the unit not about him. And one of the sources (defenceweb.co.za) is reusing content from another (Grocott's Mail) GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2014 (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.