Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Ann McWilliams


 * 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. --MuZemike 20:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Dee Ann McWilliams

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a notable person, been tagged with verification issues for two years, and was likely created by person that the article discusses (see Special:Contributions/Damcwilli). —Eustress talk 03:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. She was a major general. Of course she's notable. No reason given by the nominator for her lack of notability in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Article is all about her post-military career, which is not notable. Plus, I don't think a major general (two-star general) is notable in and of itself. —Eustress talk 18:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I did a little clean up and added some sources and all that took about 15 minutes.  With more effort,  I am sure there are more sources out there.  Under WP:GNG she seems to meet the minimum criteria.  Under WP:MILPEOPLE, she meets criteria #3 by holding a flag rank.  I will admit that I do not like autobiographical vanity pieces, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient criteria to delete.  Cheers.  EricSerge (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep- WP:SNOW per Necrothesp & EricSerge; exceeds WP:SOLDIER #3; one star is sufficient if V and RS are met. Dru of Id (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - meets WP:SOLDIER (aka WP:MILPEOPLE) criterion #3; stars on the shoulders = assumed notability. WP:V and WP:RS also met. Doesn't matter that "the article is all about a non-notable post-military career", notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 14:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep Per Bushranger. Why was this relisted?--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisting Comment It was relisted per a request on my talk page because WP:MILPEOPLE is an essay and not a notability guideline.--v/r - TP 15:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage from independent, WP:RS sources. Sources provided in article are useful for informational purposes, but nor for notability:
 * – Source from a foundation where she is a board member—not independent.
 * – Trivial mention / PR.
 * – Sourced from her former employer—not independent.
 * – Brief notice announcing withdrawal of nomination. No other info, no commentary, no debate.
 * – An award from a school she attended—not independent.
 * Link to the junior college she attended and where she currently serves on the board. I could not actually find her mentioned on the site, but source is not independent, anyway.
 * – Same as #1, source from a foundation where she is a board member—not independent.
 * Similarly, web searches find items that are primary, non-independent, social media, or provide only trivial coverage of the subject. If I have missed substantial coverage from independent, WP:RS sources, I would appreciate if another editor could provide it. I would also observe that WP:MILPEOPLE is neither a policy nor a guideline. It could well be that most major generals are notable, but this one is not. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Goodyear's analysis of the sourcing is spot on. Moreover, setting aside even questions concerning whether these sources are independent, none of them except the press release from the White House represent substantial coverage. WP:SOLDIER is an essay and ought not have anything like the weight of WP:GNG in guiding discussions such as this, and it has not been demonstrated that this individual passes WP:GNG -- at least, not as far as I can tell, sterling and laudable efforts to find sourcing notwithstanding. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  03:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep; subject of the article clearly meets WP:MILPEOPLE, and as a Flag/General Officers within the United States Armed Forces are appointed positions which require congressional approval. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. How on earth can someone who reached the third highest rank in an organisation the size of the US Army possibly not be notable? This is nothing more than a sour grapes challenge to a legitimate snow close by a minority of deletionist editors who didn't like the result. Should never have been reopened. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD was initially closed four hours after the first vote was cast--how exactly is that "legitimate"? The closing admin, at least, allowed that the point was subject to debate and reopened it on request.
 * If "keep" voters cannot provide actual evidence of notability and can offer nothing better than proof by assertion arguments that "stars on the shoulders = assumed notability", an idea that has been rejected as a guideline (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90), then how can they expect a neutral closing admin to do other than delete? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha. Once again the fallacious argument that one can prove notability. Notability is inherently subjective. It cannot possibly be proved. It is determined by consensus and common sense. I find it incredible that anyone could argue that someone who has reached general officer rank is not notable. Once again we have the ludicrous notion surfacing that minor "celebrities" who briefly have major media coverage in this celebrity-obsessed era because of their looks or the size of their breasts or sportspeople who have played a single match at first-class level are inherently notable, whereas military officers or civil servants who have reached senior positions after a successful career (although one not exciting enough to be covered by the notoriously shallow media) are not. I would contend that anyone with a modicum of common sense would be able to see quite how ridiculous this test of "notability" is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "[Notability] cannot possibly be proved"--especially if zero substantial, independent evidence from WP:RS sources is provided. "It is determined by consensus"--such as the one that previously rejected the notion that "generals are generally notable"? And note that the failed guideline WP:MILPEOPLE does say "generally", not "always". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment- Note that her (albeit withdrawn) nomination to 3 star came less than 6 years after Claudia Kennedy becoming the first 3 star, but still 5 years prior to Ann E. Dunwoody becoming the first 4 star. I realize this is small-number argument, but while the U.S. military has roughly 1000 active flag officers, she was still one of the first in this notable, and noticeably small, subset. Dru of Id (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (Edit) Dru of Id (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the precise argument is here, but if there is substantial coverage from independent WP:RS sources on that aspect of her career, then it would surely advance the case. Is there such coverage? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I can't see a credible assertion of notability let alone evidence, also weakly sourced. Pol430  talk to me 17:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rationale of MILPEOPLE, Articles for deletion/Reuben D. Jones.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:30, 2 January 2012 (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.