Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley J. Peat


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bradley J. Peat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NCO's like this don't normally meet WP:SOLDIER. I can't see anything in his career to make him notable IMO - including inducted into the Quartermaster Hall of Fame. Gbawden (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment, perhaps a redirect to a list of CSMs for the United States Army Combined Arms Support Command would be in order, if such a list would be created and abides by WP:VER. Otherwise, I can understand the SOLDIER and ANYBIO arguements for deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability and a redirect does not make any sense. Why would we want to start a list of such people? -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Command sergeant majors of a significant command hold a significant place in the command structure of a military organization.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And how has that been documented for this soldier in independent reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete not sufficient notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or ask the author to write some more about this person. There's nothing wrong with the entry.  It just lacks notability.Sophiahounslow (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lack of notabibility is something that is wrong with this entry. -- Whpq (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2013 (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.