Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester R. Davis


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Chester R. Davis

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Flunks WP:BIO; only reference is from a 53-year-old org chart. NB: There are several Assistant Secretaries of the Army. The first few I checked from the current roster do not have Wikipedia entries, including Davis's current successor as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management), Peter Kunkel. No NYT obituary, no Ghits of note. THF (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. His papers are part of the Eisenhower Presidential Library.  Having ones' papers archived by a significant library is a pretty clear indicator of notability.--ragesoss (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it just means that the papers are in the library. Lots of non-notable people have papers in presidential libraries. THF (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep find a score of (pay) articles in the NYT referencing him including what is likely his obit. Also in WaPo archives search.   establishes him as a banker of some power.  Active in American Legion  and a bunch more. Notability established. Collect (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see Chester R. Davis in the NY Times. I see Chester C. Davis, who is a different person. Can you name for me a single Senior Vice President of Chicago Title and Trust in Wikipedia?  Or, indeed, a Senior Vice President of any bank whom we have graced with a page? THF (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --  Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Assistant Secy's of these departments are major policy making positions and therefore notable, even though there is more than one of them. WP covers not just the present, so every person who ever filled any of these positions is appropriate for an article. 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 2009-01-16 22:57:05
 * (pay) etc. all from NYT for "Chester R. Davis" (this one is definitely the right person as it is about the bank). 381 googlebooks hits. Chicago Tribune featured obit. (over 200 hits in CT archives). Headed fund drive for USO. Still notable. Collect (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete: Keep: You shouldn't of mentioned the lack of sources in your nom, now people are arguing over that detail. The real argument is; that he was one of several Assistant Secretaries and hasn't done nothing extra-ordinary notable when compared with his peers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually sources are the important issue. Notability guidelines are about significant coverage in reliable sources, not doing anything "extra-ordinary". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Extra-ordianry", see notable. I have struck the offending comment, statement still rests. Being reliably sourced does not make you notable. As pointed out above, you can prove practically anyone's existence with loads of reliable sources, that does not mean they should have a Wikipedia article on them. If you can find a reliable source stating that this man did do something notable in his career (none of the stuff mentioned above please, that's not notable when compared with his peers), then I'd be happy to change to !vote. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The requirement for notability is absolute, not relative. There's no need for any subject to be more notable than its peers. There's no reason why all of these assistant secretaries shouldn't have articles if they all have significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that I haven't said "keep" here, because I haven't seen evidence of notability, but I'm just pointing out that this particular argument for deletion is invalid according to Wikipedia guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I believe it's relative, not absolute. Nothing in Wikipedia is absolute, it all requires some common sense consideration. If it were absolute that would mean anyone with significant coverage in reliable sources would be totally justified in having an article. Inclusion is actually validated by consensus (like this AFD). We're getting off topic here, and I don't fancy an argument just for the sake of it. I can't see you changing your mind, so it's best to just leave it at; "you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe", it wont matter until were both !voting on an AFD like the one described. Ryan 4314   (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your belief is incorrect. You should read Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability.  You have completely the wrong idea of what Wikipedia's criteria actually are.  The nominator is quite right to focus on the issue of sources, and you are quite wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto your subjective estimation of whether someone is important or famous or unique &mdash; a discussion that is irrelevant to our Deletion policy and to AFD. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down mate, I'm not "wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto [my] subjective estimation of whether someone is important or famous or unique" lol. The first paragraph of WP:BIO says; "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Neither of you have stated what makes this guy so special? Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The important words that you seem to be ignoring are "...or to be recorded". It has been shown that the subject of this article has been recorded, so this applies. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have ignored my above question numerous times. My answer to yours is; being recorded (or in this case name-checked) does not make you automatically notable. I reiterate; what has this man done that is "worthy of notice, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The authors, editors and publishers of the reliable sources cited in the article have decided that this man's achievements deserve attention and to be recorded. That's what we go by in Wikipedia, not our own subjective judgements. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not realise the article had been significantly rewritten since I !voted. At that time the article simply stated that he was one of several Assistant Secretaries of the Army and only had one source, a name check on a government list. I agree that these numerous references from various sources indicate he is notable. Well done on the rewrite THF and Uncle G. I also notice that all the "delete" !votes were made before the rewrite, might I suggest politely notifying those !voters and even the nom, as they maybe inclined to change their !vote. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: This guy doesn't seem to meet the notability standards. He has done nothing notable to stand out from other assistant secretaries.WackoJacko (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Our standards are the existence of multiple, independent published works documenting this person's life and works in depth, not a Wikipedia editor's subjective opinion of how unique or special this person's achievements were. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Note. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator is wrong. There are at least 14 sources to be had, and yes that includes at least 4 NYT articles.  This person's life and works do appear to be a part of the permanent, public, historical record, and it appears to be possible to create a biography of him, because one has been created. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is substantially better, and about as well-sourced as it could be. Which is why I stand by my delete position.  Your edits effectively try to slant the debate; if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks.  WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia is not a directory.  The passing mention in a number of sources doesn't add up to the significant coverage in multiple, independent sources required for WP:N.  That adjective is all too often ignored in these discussions.  Davis held a non-notable position, and then was appointed by a non-notable body to a subcommittee of a non-notable committee.  This is not encyclopedic: even if Davis qualifies for a Who's Who directory, he doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia biography.  THF (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Writing a sourced article is not slanting a debate. Don't be ridiculous!  It's your additions of daft links to the article (such as turning "Committee of 49" into a link &mdash; clearly without having read the source that supported that content) that are the attempts to slant the debate, if anything.  If the activities of this person were so non-notable, there wouldn't be the sources that have noted them, as there are.  That you tagged the word "decorated" as questionable, when it was in the very title of the source cited (as well as in the body of one of the later sources), and that you are arguing about "news" coverage on a biographical article covering the achievements, dated between 50 and 80 years ago, of a person who has been dead for over 40 years, shows that you are grasping at straws now with your edits and arguments.  Uncle G (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't say that he's notable because he was appointed to a subcommittee of the Committee of 49 and then complain that it's not notable enough to merit a wikilink. One or the other, but not both.
 * There isn't a source for the claim. So how can I read the source?
 * I tagged "decorated" as questionable, because there's no indication that it's a notable decoration. Decorated with what?  Millions of soldiers get decorated every year.  Army brass have rows and rows of decorations.  The fact you can't identify the decoration demonstrates my point that it wasn't a notable decoration.
 * And, need I repeat, WP:NOTNEWS. Just because it's in the local newspaper doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. THF (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did anyone say that the subject is notable "because he was appointed to a subcommittee of the Committee of 49"? This is simply part of the biography of a subject who is notable by virtue of significant coverage in reliable sources. The source for this statement is cited at the end of the paragraph, and can be read by consulting the book at a library or by following the ISBN link to Google Books. And are The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune local newspapers? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is ludicrous bootstrapping. The claim is that he's notable because of a putatively significant mention of him with respect to something that everyone agrees is not notable, to the point that people are complaining that I've pointed out that the subject of the story is a redlink.  To repeat for the third time, which no one has acknowledged or addressed, WP:NOTNEWS.  Stringing together a series of trivial mentions in a series of sources does not add up to notability.  If we delete everything in this article that isn't related to something notable, the article would be empty because this fellow is not notable.  We don't have a Category:Vice Presidents of Chicago Title & Trust or a Category:Assistant Secretaries of the Army or even an article about the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management).  THF (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You say "if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks". "Proper" wikilinks are links to subjects that either have an article or are clearly notable enough to have one. Adding links to subjects that you consider to be unnotable in an attempt to make the unnotability rub off onto another subject is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough sources have been found to show notability. Even without reading them it is clear that several of these are substantially about the subject, as he is referred to in the headlines, so they do amount to significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2009 (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.