Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Adams (General)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris Adams (General)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I'm just not certain of notability. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: is there any way the contents of this article can be merged into others, such as "war heroes or something?--60.240.117.215 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What articles did you have in mind? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. WP:BIO doesn't say that generals are automatically notable, but it probably should. I added some references, but his name is quite common. Most or all of his books are self-published. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep While I don't believe simply being a general officer is grounds for notability according to Wikipedia standards (it is in my book, but that's just one opinion), being a published author with books that can be referenced most certainly is. Writing the article from that point of view, and mentioning his military career, would be appropriate. Rapier1 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a Major General, and Chief of Staff of the Strategic Air Command, serving in several prominent roles after military service, and with at least a few newspaper articles covering his activities, suggests notability. The commonness of his name makes the typical Google news archive and Google book searches difficult, and most possible sources are behind paywall, so it is difficult to be sure the extent of coverage (or even if it is the same Chris Adams in some cases). Some sources are likely when he had a lesser rank than the retirement one.   suggests that a major newspaper paper reviewed his book. Possible other sources: "Called to appear before the House committee are Air Force Secretary Hans Mark: ... Gen Chris Adams, the Strategic Air Command's deputy chief of operations. .." and "PARKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR VIGIL, MOVING WALL NOV. 9-12" Pay-Per-View - US Fed News - Factiva, from Dow Jones - Nov 3, 2006:"Retired Air Force Major General Chris Adams, a 1952 graduate of A&M-Commerce who has been honored as a Distinguished Alumnus, will speak. ..." (broken link). A Google Book result about him appears to be  page 43: "stand down the alert until 21 November when a B-52H of the 379th Bomb Wing returned to its home base at Wurtsmith AFB, Michigan. Chris Adams reflected in...". If notability is determined from independent sources, then his autobiographical information from one of his books can be used to expand the article: . He had various assignments in the Strategic Air Command, then became a Brigadier General in charge of the 12th Air Division in 1975, including 2 B-52 wings, U2s, and Titan II ICBMs. He became Chief of Staff of the SAC in 1982.   Edison (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the general notability guideline. It's good that general/flag officers aren't guaranteed notability, because many of them in many countries aren't going to have sufficient coverage; however, this specific general does have sufficient coverage.  Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In which countries would generals not receive coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per Edison. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that any general/flag officer would not qualify, but to be a published author as well would indicate to me that he has met the notability guideline. C. Williams (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This nominator seems to be on a spree of deletion nomination by guesswork, without even taking the few seconds necessary to make cursory checks before nomination. Am I the only one who feels that such disruptive, time-wasting behaviour is unbecoming of an administrator? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Edison. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Edison says it best. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that the combination of the subject's military career and career as a writer is sufficient to establish notability per WP:N. Of course, as it stands the article does not exactly make the subject's notability explicit. Perhaps the lead could be tweaked to add a stronger statement of notability? Also more details could be added to the military career section, for example dates of enlistment/appointment and discharge, etc. Just a couple of suggestions if anyone has sources/feels inclined. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2010 (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.