Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Martin (United States Army)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 04:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Martin (United States Army)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:MILHIST consensus has established that only first level awards (Victoria Cross, Hero of the Soviet Union etc), rather than second level (DSC etc) are inherently notable in isolation. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)
 * Delete as nominator. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - see Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Blomberg for another such article. Looks like there are hundreds of these to be cleaned up once that AfD runs it's course. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, although the subject's service is honorable and commendable, it is notable per WP:GNG, as it is only referenced at this time by a single website (which is nearly copied in whole or part by the article itself), or WP:MILPEOPLE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reliable sources give more than trivial coverage, so fails WP:GNG, not to mention the fact that this wqas only a second-tier military decoration. Skinny87 (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I feel a bit bad voting delete on this page, but as per Wiki policy I don't think this is up to scratch. Maybe in the future a list could be created of second-tier military decoration awardees DRosin (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:V. Although this individual's actions are highly admirable, being a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross is not quite notable enough in itself per Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, there is an extreme lack of available sources as Skinny87 states. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. He would have to have had at least one other award at this level to be considered for an article unless he did something else notable. A holder of a first tier decoration is inherently notable; a holder of a second tier decoration is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per established consensus. This award just isn't enough to confer inherent notability. I have encountered dozens or maybe even hundreds of articles like this and I never understood how they could pass the notability standards. It's time for a massive nomination of hundreds to thousands of these articles. If the award is so prevalent that at least one person in a high percentage of small communities have received it, then it's probably too broad for Wikipedia to cover.  Royal broil  13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think they need mass nominated, they can just be speedied as non-notable per GNG and the WP:MILHISTORY guidelines. Canterbury Tail   talk  03:43, 27 December 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.