Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Jack


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bryan Jack

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only notable as a victim of 9/11 but no substantial coverage apart from that so WP:1E applies. (Paid editing cleanup). SmartSE (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: also note none of the results through the above links are about him. --Rubbish computer 17:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This individual may have been awarded the Department of Defense Distinguished Civilian Service Award, the United States Department of Defense's highest award for civilians, which could make him notable under WP:ANYBIO. This is spoken of in the article but not cited. — Brianhe (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. His Pentagon 9/11 Memorial entry only states he received the Defense Exceptional Service Medal twice. The Distinguished Civilian Service Award would not have conferred automatic notability in any case. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as my searches simply found nothing better and there's no good move target. SwisterTwister   talk  07:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would, of course, be possible to create a target for that redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I see lots of source about him per se meeting GNG and a school is named in his honor. Lead could be improved. --JumpLike23 (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems a perfect example of WP:BIO1E. Nothing to show notability outside of that tragedy.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "nothing notable outside that tragedy" ? Nothing notable except... it was an attack on the Pentagon?  And, of course, the fact that this attack hand an enduring impact in dragging the  United States into a series of unsuccessful wars... An event of that scale and with that impact cannot simply be dismissed in a discussion of what confers notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that one of his article was significant enough to be re-published in a 2013 book, "Collective Choice: Essays in Honor of MANCUR OLSON, here: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability conferred by substantive media coverage surrounding his death.  Wikipedia has many articles on victims of this attack. It is the kind of informative detail readers expect on Wikipedia.  I took the time to add the appropriate category and link it form appropriate articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing that those sources exist, but per WP:1E those aren't sufficient for a standalone article. Your argument appears to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF. SmartSE (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merely pointing out that a very specific set of precedents (kept articles on 9/11 victims) exists. As for the sources, Clearly what suffices is a matter of judgment.  I think being a victim of this act of terrorism adds to notability.  As does having a school named in your honor.  But I am responding to your comment to point out that  It is because guidelines require judgment calls that we have AFD.  And because and standards for keeping/deleting change over time that citing precedents can be useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It's local news coverage saying similar stuff about how a school was named after him, shows that he was honored by his community. Much like the other people he is talked about with here . The other sources are typical for 9/11 victims, and it's all still connected to the attack, it wasn't named until after. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2015 (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.