Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Hornsby


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-31 05:32Z 

Aubrey Hornsby

 * — (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Cribcage 04:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Possible copyvio, but can't find the source. MER-C 09:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the rewrite, sadly at least 3 of the 4 sources are not reliable. Experts.about.com is a Wikipedia mirror. Members.tripod.com is user generated. And the last is a corporate biography. My delete !vote still stands. MER-C 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Re the comments on the websources: (1) you are right expert.com is a carbon copy of the Wikipedia artice on same (2) the corporate biography tend to support other information but is not a strong source; however, the fact that members.tripod.com is published by a tripod member does not invalidate the veracity of this third party work, which is copywrited and a serious source of information, which is well researched; this is a non sequitur since we can question the accuracy and motives of any printed medium as well. --Kevin Murray 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User "Hit bull, win steak" has added three more strong references on 27 December 2006 ; two of which are government documents. (see below)--Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would otherwise need complete rewrite. &mdash; Ultor_Solis • T 14:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Complete rewrite since this comment was entered--Kevin Murray 04:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd say this article is stub-worthy. Still needs improvement just to get to a stable version. &mdash; Ultor_Solis • T 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sources are, rather inconspicuously, revealed at the end of the article. --Ouro 14:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. When I put my vote here, the sources looked like in this diff. I don't think it's good practice to cite Wikipedia itself as a source for another article. My vote also stays, I'd say... --Ouro 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The policy of sourcing within Wikipedia is credible and your opinion is not grounds for deletion --Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The earlier formatting problems with the references are irrelevant to an AfD discussion --Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Since the rewritten article now satifies any legitimate concerns of the above, it should be kept and labeled as a Stub. --Kevin Murray 00:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kevin Murray is not the original author of this article. I became involved here as part of the AfD and saw merit, so I rewrote and researched sources--Kevin Murray 05:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Cribcage 19:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE The nomination does not site a specific problem other than "Fails WP:BIO". The first Delete references a Copyright Violation there is no further evidence to that effect, and the article has now been completely rewritten, which should satisfy the second deletion vote.  The third vote for deletion is irrelevant as most Wikipedia sources are "revealed" at the end of the article. --Kevin Murray 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Lacks reliable sources, Wikipedia and its mirrors are not reliable. I wouldn't normally class a tripod hosted site as reliable, unless information is available regarding the reliability of Paul Freeman. One Night In Hackney 21:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One Night In Hackney posed a valid question regading the reliablity of Paul Freeman as a source. Clearly he is an amateur web presence, but a Google search shows that he is independent and I believe credible.  He has published multiple works online about airports.  Is he non-trivial?  At minimum his work demonstrates that Gen. Hornsby is being discussed outside of this article. --Kevin Murray 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, since I believe that all military officers who rise to the rank of General in a significant army are sufficiently notable to deserve coverage. I've gone through and added a few more reliable sources (two of which are publications of the Federal Govt.). It could still use further expansion, but at least now there's real confirmation of his rank and some of his duty stations/responsibilities. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep With the new sources I'm happier with the article. Although there don't seem to be any guidelines about military personnel, Hit bull, win steak makes a good argument. One Night In Hackney 22:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. --Duke of Duchess Street 04:53, 31 December 2006 (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.