Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David michael close


 * 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 ) 04:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

David michael close

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Spammy, unsourced and overall non-notable but speedy deletion was declined because User:Nanodance thinks that notability is asserted. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It was originally speedied db-spam (for some reason) and then db-bio, but I had removed the WP:Peacock prose before the speedy tag reappeared. If references can be found then the subject does appear to be notable for his improvements to military technology. If none can be found, then the article will need to be deleted. I doubt we'll get any help from the article's creator, however, since the first communication on his talk page was a db-spam warning, without even a welcome tag or even a "hello". Nanodance (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As noted, there are no reliable or verifiable sources on the subject. Regardless of whether he got a hello or welcome tag, it does not justify the author demeaning editors by calling them names. The author has coarsely stated on the discussion page that the article can be deleted. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was just going to mention the rants and name-callings on the article talk so I strongly doubt that we'd get help from the creator even if I had welcomed him. De728631 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, he was right about one thing: Wikipedia is run mainly by shitheads, and I won't waste another minute of my life editing it. Cheery-bye. Nanodance (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait (see my comment immediately below) : The creator obviously has a conflict of interest as he is a family-member of the article's deceased subject and yes, the language was uncalled-for, but considering the occasional quickness of this process let some research be done to see if the subject is notable (even in spite of the creator's language/behavior?) I am looking for references now and will report back here as soon as I can. Shearonink (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete:It pains me to say that I am voting for Delete as well. I did many searches and this person, while important to their family and apparently also important to their country, does not have enough mentions in reliable sources to be considered notable, according to Wikipedia's standards. Shearonink (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For all I could find, Google yields nothing but various contact requests for an RAF person David Michael Close on some reunion and person search sites. And Joint Service Publication 480 does not reveal its author. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No notability demonstrated in article. Carrite (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet basic notability requirements, see WP:VRS WP:GNG  Chzz  ► 03:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear delete do to above comments, Sadads (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Seems to fail WP:MILPEOPLE. Performing budgeting and radar timing might or might not be significant work, but it doesn't seem like his contributions have been written about in a significant way. A "commendation" in and of itself is not rare, as the article claims (there are awards with the word "commendation" in them, but most are not UK, and the UK ones are accessory to another award, it seems). Unless some good refs are found, it just seems like he's not notable.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete:Appears to be written by either him or someone who personally knows him. Outside of personal knowledge, no other reason for an article. -OberRanks (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete created as a memorial site but it still shows no signs of notability. A diligent serviceman did a good job and was praised a few times, not unlike thousands of others. Bit suspect of He also wrote and maintained Joint Service Publication 480, he may have made a major contribution but normally these publication are created and maintained by teams of people. AOC in C commendation is a worthwhile recognition but not at the level to attain wikipedia notability. MilborneOne (talk) 19:12, 16 September 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.