Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Freeborn


 * 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. Topic fails WP:BIO in the warm, blinding glow of WP:COI'''. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Freeborn

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

ambiguous or unclear notability per WP:BIO; if I am grossly in error, please let me know, but I cannot determine the notability of this person at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment are the awards he received notable? I'm not familiar with notability guidelines there. If they are and then can be verified, then I'd lean keep TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, CSMs are generally as notable as commanders, but the article is a carbon copy of his PD air force bio (which is public domain) and needs to be rewritten. MrPrada (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I've had a good try to find anything that might establish notability for this one. He seems like a great guy and the tone of the entry is encyclopedic. Nonetheless, the one Google Books reference is trivial and there's nothing else of any substance that would justify a wikipedia article. Debate (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on the above, when I say trivial I mean, of course, trivial references not trivial accomplishments. To whit, "[photo] (Courtesy of Clay Freeborn)" p43, "Master Sergeant Clay Freeborn, Squadron Gunner for the 23rd [and another] ... performed instructor duties and were acting primary gunners briefly in the middle of the mission" p44. Debate (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * keep. Notable as a CSM for a MACOM. Article could greatly benefit from the inclusion of more sources, however. AfD hero (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Has there ever been any formal discussion in Wikipedia regarding this? It seems a very low hurdle for one to become notable simply because one has achieved Chief Master Sergeant rank. The pool of individuals this includes is surely huge. A quick google search, for example, finds that around 416 individuals each year achieve the rank of CSM in the United States Air Force alone . If the equivalent rank was also notable in each armed service of every country in the world then the number of potential entries would be in the hundreds of thousands. The rank, while no doubt accomplished, is surely no more nor less than similar level business executives, public servants, academics that routinely fail WP:N when nominated for afd. Debate (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, vote withdrawn then . I wouldn't go so far as to vote delete though, as he does have a considerable list of significant activities independent of his title as CSM. AfD hero (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. My statement that 'CSMs are notable' had the unwritten caveat, for MACOMs. As Xymmax points out below, he was the CSM of HQ Space Command, there are very few 4-star MACOMS out there (Northcom, Southcom, Pacom, Eucom, Jointcom, Socom, Transcom and Spacecom if memory serves), so he was basically one of the top eight CSMs. However I agree that the sources are currently lacking, although we have plenty of Generals who are nothing but primary source copies of their PD mil bio. MrPrada (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In light of this I change my vote back to keep. Looks like I'm doing more waffling than a house of pancakes. The military bio should suffice as a reliable source to verify the simple facts of what positions he has been in, though as usual the more sources the better. AfD hero (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak delete I concur, the mention within the sources I can see are trivial, and otherwise I do not see anything pointing towards notability. I was not able to view the book page that mentioned his name, so that is not a factor in my consideration. In fairness to the gentlemen's accomplishments, I think that the assertion here is that he served as the highest enlisted person at two major commands, HQ Space Command and Strategic Command West. Only a select number of Chief Master Sergeants will accomplish something of this magnitude. Still, even acknowledging the scope of his accomplishments, I do not see the treatment in reliable sources to establish notability. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick note here. STRATCOM and SPACECOM were merged, and it seems SPACECOM, at Peterson, continued on for a while as 'StratCom West' before being finally folded up. So really he hasn't had two full tours as CSM of two unified combatant commands. My vote is delete by the way (think about the number of all those thousand of senior enlisted people in all the four-star commands in the world since 1900, for a start.) Regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails to establish notability under WP:BIO. The Google Books item mentions him in passing regarding the final gunnery flight. Because the coverage in this source is not substantial, Freeman's article would require multiple independent sources to establish notability. The other source lists him as the husband of an alumna of a university in a where-are-they-now section of the university's alumni magazine. I can't speak to this particular magazine, but these are typically notices sent in by the subject him- or herself, and, by definition, primary. Per WP:BIO, primary sources are acceptable for content, but not in establishing notability. Freeman sounds like a fine, upstanding man, just not notable. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment Because the article was created and substantially edited only by, there is strong evidence that the entire article has WP:COI issues. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. Debate (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn't meet WP:BIO -- Trippz (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (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.