Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brent Morel (marine)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Brent Morel (marine)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

May not meet notability guidelines. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep May meet notability guidelines. Warden (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Under WP:GNG subjects must have "Significant coverage" from "Reliable" "Sources" "Independent of the subject". The four links in the references section are as follows: a dead link, a "KIA tribute", a 1st Recon Bn Association tribute, and a DoD memorial page.  The tributes are not independent of the subject nor are they really reliable sources.  While the DoD page is reliable it lacks the independence and would need to be backed by other sources.  These sources do not constitute significant coverage.  If there are other reliable sources for this subject, I think you would have added them by now.  EricSerge (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Junior officer awarded single second-level gallantry decoration the same as many, many thousands of others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:1E resulting in the award of a single second-level gallantry decoration is not sufficient to confer notability. While tragic see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. EricSerge (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability and 1E are different concepts. 1E means that we shouldn't have two articles if the topic is just one event.  But where's the other article about this event?  If there isn't one then this is the only article and the policy WP:PRESERVE applies.  As for notability, that has nothing to do with the number of events and is just matter of sourcing.  The article already has numerous sources and there are plenty more such as this book.  Being documented in detail in works such as this is the essence of notability and that trumps WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which is about topics which are not notable. Warden (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop trotting out WP:PRESERVE, it does not trump Wikipedia's notability requirements. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a policy and it trumps WP:1E in this case. The point of WP:1E is that we shouldn't have multiple articles about a notable event - one for the event and one for the people involved.  But that's not an argument to delete an article when it is the only article about that notable event.  The point is that we shouldn't be deleting sourced information because that's disruptive to the general improvement of the encyclopedia.  Warden (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:1E, the article already written is Iraq War. I used WP:NOTMEMORIAL since a the majority of the external links and "references" were memorial type webpages.  EricSerge (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails Wikipedia's notability standards. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject passes WP:GNG, being the subject of multiple sources. WP:BLP1E is irrelevant for subjects who are dead rather than living. WP:SOLDIER is an essay not a policy.  That's three strikes. Warden (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All the sources cited (those that aren't dead links) are standard memorial pages for dead servicemen. If we're going to take these as acceptable sources for determing article notability then we may as well declare that every servicemen from a Western country killed in recent times is notable, as most of them have similar tribute pages. And if we decide this, then we presumably also have to declare that all servicemen ever killed in action are notable, as otherwise we'd have systemic bias from the facts that servicemen from Western countries are far more likely to have such tributes than others and that the vast majority of servicemen killed in history were killed before anyone could post a tribute to them online. This is clearly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:1E then. The subject does not pass WP:GNG due to the pages used as sources being, as mentioned, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL for a fallen soldier. And WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. First let me link to the subject's citation for his Navy Cross. That being said, although I honor the Captain's ultimate sacrifice during his service to a great nation, this article clearly falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Although the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, they primarily cover his death, and the event that lead to his expiring. This is why coverage can be considered routine for the death of a servicemember; additionally the arguements for deletion cite WP:BLP1E are due to the fact that the event that they are pointing to is the subject's death. Moreover, although it is only an essay, the weight given by WP:MILHIST to WP:SOLDIER (which is a lot) means that among the majority of active editors in the scope of MILHIST being and recipient (even posthumously) of one second rate medal of valor is insufficient to be considered notable on the grounds of awarding alone.
 * All this being said, if it is the wish of the primary editor that the content be preserved believing that additional sources can be found to show that the subject is notable for more than the subject's death, it can be requested that the content be userfied so additional work can be done to it outside of the articlespace.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not notable, not a memorial. Not a compelling reason to preserve either  p  b  p  21:39, 25 August 2012 (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.