Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel P. Woodward


 * 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   no consensus to delete (default to keep) - this debate has turned into a comparison of Google hits, and we know that the amount of Google hits the subject of an article has is not a good test of notability. On the contrary, the points brought up by MrPrada and TomStar81 illustrate why the subject is notable. The fact that an article needs cleanup or needs to be wikified is also not a reason to delete it; notability and cleanup needed appear to be the only grounds given for deletion. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel P. Woodward

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

Delete - Article on a brigadier general whose career does not stand out from the hundreds of other 1 star generals currently on active duty, nor from the thousands of brigadier generals in the past. The afd tag was removed with the claim of finding 92,000 hits on google, but the real number is 33 when you put quotes around his name. Not currently a commander, nor any notable commands in the past. Article is a cut and paste of the official USAF bio. Maybe in the future he will be notable, but as of now, no Nobunaga24 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing notable in Wikipedia terms about this general. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He is the director of Regional Affairs of a US air force department. (he's not just a 1 star general) That hints at some notability in the US public service sphere. Artene50 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:CLEANUP urgently required per WP is not a service record or curriculum vitae. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. J-8 at the Pentagon during wartime exceeds standards for notability. MrPrada (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep An officer with any amount of stars on his or her shoulders meets minimum notability requirements, though I agree with Ohconfucius that the article needs alot of help with regards to cleanup and directory. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Some months ago, I asked whether a nation's top military commander (not just a brigadier general) would be considered notable by dint of being the commander, and the idea was declined (see here, searching for "Daoud"). I can't provide any other links for a place that the notability of military leaders, per their positions as military leader, has been discussed; since the only remotely policy-related page that deals with this says no, I say delete.  Give more reliable sources, and he'll be notable, but because of the different sources.  Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately that discussion is now archived, I wish I had known. Before I had my user page deleted, I had listed the criteria that I used in determining what I thought was notable for military personnel. I said (as far as US personnel) all 3 and 4 star flag officers were notable just by their rank, 2 stars maybe, and 1 stars really need to have something beyond just being a 1 star flag officer - i.e. first whatever-American to make flag rank (Benjimin O. Davis Sr.), a notable exploit or award (such as Robin Olds or Chuck Yeager), or the top officer in their field (Jesse Cross, the Quartermaster General). Most one stars are in a deputy capacity, a chief of staff, a directorship, or in a lower level command (not in charge of the thousands or tens of thousands that 2, 3, and 4 stars are in charge of. And there are literally hundreds on active duty at any given time. --Nobunaga24 (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nobunaga24 narrowed his ghits to 33, but the correct number is 5. This GoogleNews link illustrates the extent of coverage he has received in reliable sources. Clearly, he has fallen far short of the significant coverage requirement of WP:BIO. See also WP:MILMOS, the military notability guidelines, which he doesn't meet either. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobunaga24 is correct. Its 33 hits...which is why I maintain a weak keep on him. Brewcrewer's 5 hits search result is incorrect--the first two have nothing to do with Brigadier General Daniel P. Woodward at all (unless he was recently jailed, something I highly doubt) while the fifth deals with an article from 1893 before Woodward was even born. I found this air force web site which has pertinent info. on Woodward here Artene50 (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my point. Nobunaga24 is correct and I'm correct. What I am saying is that the important search should be GoogleNews (my search), not plain Google (Nobunaga24's search). GoogleNews determines the media coverage that he has received, which is the most important criteria of WP:BIO. I also noticed that three out of the five do not refer to him, but didn't bother mentioning it because 5 hits is worthless anyway. The fact some of them don't even refer to him actually strengthens my assertion. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Googlenews is not really a fair comparison because an individual may not be mentioned in the news every week or two. Googlesearch is the better option. Artene50 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * GoogleNews goes back to as far as there are newspapers. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Point of information, only for 4500 newspapers, though. The Bolling AFB newspaper in Washington D.C. is published daily and has thousands of air force stories in their archive going back to the 70s, but are not available on googlenews. The fifty or so Gannet papers which have been publishing since the 1800s, like the Army Times (which is a private paper), use their own archive engine (nl.newsbank.com) and also don't show up in googlenews. MrPrada (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if he is truly notable, i.e. he has received significant coverage in multiple sources, surely something would show up in Googlenews. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:38, 15 June 2008 (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.