Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles L. Deibert


 * 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. Certainly a remarkable individual, but the delete votes are policy-based, whereas the keep votes are not and likely come from a COI editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Charles L. Deibert

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DSC alone is not enough for notability and there's nothing else--his political appointment is a state appointment only and is quite minor.

The article is essentially a long personal tribute. Based on the contents, it may possibly written by a close relative.  DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Charles L. Deibert is a military historical figure responsible for saving countless lives, and is (four times reappointed) Oregon Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army (CASA); In addition of its historical and military significance, this article has multiple, verifiable references directly supporting it's substantive applicability for encyclopedic inclusion. The significance of Deibert's role in the Vietnam battle, as well as the Oregon National Guard Operations Facility, are notable beyond compare for inclusion as encyclopedic information.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedcarrollauthor (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. It would appear there is a conflict of interest situation, since the article's original editor,, has cited personal correspondence with Deibert as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

In reply to C.Fred's comment (above) The "personal correspondence with Deibert as a source" is inaccurate. Deibert, himself, was not a source; in fact, the personal emails that C.Fred refers to are !) McCluskey and 2) Clinch. The fact should be noted that these sources are used either, a) as Clinch is, for example, referenced as a secondary source regarding John Clarke and Deibert's historical/hereditary ties that support encyclopedic validity (and thus, one of various, notable reasons for Wiki inclusion--which clearly is contrary to any pro-deletion claims on this page). Further, it is of paramount significance that NEITHER CLINCH NOR MCCLUSKEY ARE STAND-ALONE SOURCES--RATHER BOTH ARE USED AS CONVENIENTLY INCIDENTAL ADDENDA; TELLINGLY, NEITHER SOURCE-IN-QUESTION IS USED FOR SOLE SUPPORT. IN FACT, ONE OR BOTH THE MCCLUSKEY AND CLINCH SOURCES MAY BE CONFIDENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE PAGE, NOT WEAKENING THE CREDIBILITY NOR NOTABILITY OF ITS ENCYCLOPEDIC (AND OTHERWISE) NOTABLE SOUNDNESS. Certainly, C.Fred (or anyone else) may remove one or both of these sources (Clinch, McCluskey) and the argument disappears. This fact alone strengthens my position to keep the notable Charles L. Deibert page as notable, valid, reliable, accurate, and worthy of encyclopedic inclusion based on historical, social, military, national, and international significance. [note, please consider the "CAPS" as emphasis only; in other words, the intention is not to "shout," just intending the text to stand out for this page's discussion. Thanks you!]   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.41.166 (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * nobody's personal e-mail is a reliable source for anything at all on Wikipedia.  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as I waited before commenting to see if anyone could help it, but considering the article is considerably puffed and not easily comprehensible to suggest a salvageable article, there's nothing to therefore suggesting keeping for now. SwisterTwister   talk  06:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  01:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: an admirable individual no doubt, but I don't believe they meet the encyclopedia's notability requirements. The reliance on emails and youtube links serve as red flags for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - essentially, this is original research. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2016 (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.