Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Schmuck (second nomination)


 * 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. --Daniel Olsen 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Donald Schmuck


This article has been previously nominated with a result of no concensus.

He simply fails WP:BIO despite the misleadingly good appearance of the article. There is also a WP:COI from the author. To quote JGardner's comment on the article's talk page:
 * Being a Brigadier General alone should be notable enough Well, I'm in the military and I can tell you that 1 stars are not at all uncommon. But you don't have to take my word for it: According to the Census bureau there are 873 active duty admirals or generals currently serving as of Jan 2003. That's not even including the Generals in the Reserves and National Guard which would easily push that number over the 1,000 mark. Those are just Generals who are still in the service. Now imagine adding not only all of the retired Generals, but the ones who have passed away such as General Schmuck. And let's not be US centric! Throw in the equivalent Generals from all of the world's major armed services. Rank is obviously not a feasible test of notability.


 * He led a battalion involved in notable battles in the Korean War Here's an impartial list of all of the units involved in the Korean War He was a company grade officer and there were thousands of them in command during the Korean war, what makes Donald Schmuck singularly notable? Did anyone ever consider Dick Winters (another impressive company grade officer) a notable military figure until Steven Ambrose wrote about a book with him in it? I'm sorry. He's insanely well-decorated and I have no doubt that his actions were vitally important in the immediate sense, but to poorly paraphrase Clausewitz: in the larger scheme of armed conflict nearly all of us in the military are anonymous cogs in the great war machine. Thank you, please vote below --  ßott   e   siηi  (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable bio about the military life of a former general during the Korean War. This absolutely meets WP:BIO. Diez2 01:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment According to this, the subject held a rank lower than that of Colonel during the Korean War. As a battalion commander, he probably held the lesser rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Bwithh 03:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Which part of WP:BIO does it "absolutely" meet? JGardner 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, the question of notability is there to ensure that we have enough reliable sources to write a good article about the guy. There's an article about him linked, and he's obviously done things worth writing about. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not a means to an end; it is the end. If the subject is not notable per the criterion listed in WP:BIO it does not belong on wikipedia. The article you mention only discusses Gen. Schmuck in passing, which does not meet WP:BIO's criterion of "being the subject of multiple, independent publications". JGardner 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your description of notability is absolutely incorrect. Notability is a guideline that serves as a means to the end of fulfilling our policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V that define our goal of creating an encyclopedia.  The encyclopedia is the goal; notability is only a means to that end.  There are three articles linked.  Two are directly about him and the third mentions him in passing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that if this person cannot be established as singularly notable, there's no reason to have the article. A line has to be drawn somewhere of what people are to be included in an encyclopedia, as wikipedia is not a repository of biographies. None of the references in the article establish notability. The USMC bio is not independent of the subject, neither is the article from the website of Arlington National Cemetary where he's buried. The article you mentioned is independent but does not feature Schmuck anymore than it does the Colonel, Lt Col, Captain, Lieutenant or NCO also discussed in the article. JGardner 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment What you don't mention is that the previous nom, by yourself, just closed three days ago, with 7-3 in favor of keeping, counting the nominator, nor do you link it. AS for the specious arguments for deletion, god forbid we have thousands of articles about people--if there is enough good verifiable information to write a decent article, why not?  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEP The present nominator was in the minority in the very, very recent AfD discussion, and IMO seemed to be expressing somewhat of a bias against military people in general during that discussion. I think when the numbers reflected 7-3 the Admin made a mistake by calling it "no consensus."  Consensus does not mean that everything must be unanimous.  Donald Schmuck is notable.  Regardless of the way that the Admin marked the closing remarks of the AfD, there was a consensus to keep.  This new nomination makes it really, really hard to assume good faith. OfficeGirl 02:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the closure of the previous afd, take it to WP:DRV. I don't see anything wrong with the no consensus close myself.Bwithh 03:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Article text appears to be a copyright violation WP:COPYVIO. See this copyrighted newspaper site and this copyrighted memorial site Bwithh 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The text is similar, but it seems to have been rewritten. It's borderline plagiarism, though I'm not sure if it's stepped out of the bounds of the law. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On a second look, I bascially agree with Night Gyr's perspective on this point - though I would say that its more of a merge of text from two or three sources than a rewrite as such Bwithh 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Procedural Keep with Total Rewrite advised On the one hand, I don't see any solid claim of encyclopedic notability (as per nom) in the article. It's certainly possible that one or several can be made, but the article simply doesn't do it. I would tend towards Delete in such a case, unless substantive claims can be made and proved. On the other hand, Night Gyr is right to say that it is too soon to renominate the article after the first afd (Bottesini, please wait a couple of months or so). (However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and should avoid the appearance of plagiarism - the article should be rewritten to avoid sounding like the obituary an bios it is derived from). Bwithh 03:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per other keeps †he Bread  04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep though it needs a rewrite to make his notability clear. James086Talk 05:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete but I might change my mind if those who are arguing Keep so emphatically would actually make an argument for why this career military man is notable. I disagree with the idea that "the question of notability is there to ensure that we have enough reliable sources to write a good article about the guy" -- besides the fact that this argument is a blatant ploy to avoid the issue, the question of notability has always been a stand-alone requirement as opposed to a function of the sourcing requirement (after all, it is relatively easy to source an article about a non-notable subject-- not everyone mentioned in judicial records and newspaper articles deserves an encyclopedia article). Allon Fambrizzi 08:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
 * Delete I find the arguments raised above in the nomination by JGardner compelling: brigadier general is not on its own grounds for notability per WP:BIO; neither is leading a brigade in the Korean War. Suggesting this be kept without making reference to those arguments is lazy. The nominator has laid forth perfectly legitimate reasons to remove this on grounds that the subject fails WP:BIO.  It is fine to disagree, but the subject is clearly borderline.  Voting to keep based on some kind of perceived procedural violation is simply ridiculous. Eusebeus 11:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete But, again, very willing to change my mind if someone, anyone can provide evidence that this person satisfies a criterion listed in WP:BIO. Other than Night Gyr, not one person commenting here has made any argument for the notability of this person; they've simply asserted notability, brought up red herrings about other articles, or attacked the nominator. JGardner 01:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A general star and half a dozen medals isn't notable? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the military at all, but no, being a one star general does not satisfy notability requirements. There are over 800 generals serving actively right now. All of my relatives that served in WWII brought home half a dozen medals each, which is not an insignificant achievement by any stretch, but it does not assert notability. --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are over 800 professional athletes playing actively right now. Does the fact that there are a lot of them mean that we shouldn't have an article about them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it your serious contention that anyone who has ever attained the rank of brigadier general is automatically notable? For what reason? Aside from the fact that you've now just opened the door for the multiple thousands of living and dead US one stars and higher, not to mention the tens of thousands of brigadier and higher equivalents from other major world militaries, current and past; I must ask, why stop there? Why not include every Colonel? How about every Lt. Colonel? Major? We can continue to go down the military hierarchy, but the point is that whatever rank you draw the line is wholly arbitrary. The sole factor it should come to as to whether a person of whatever title or rank should be included in an encyclopedia is: has this person been established as a singularly notable figure? If that can't be established, why on earth should an encyclopedia care about him? JGardner 07:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep &mdash; the Navy Cross and two Silver Stars is enough to make him notable. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per OfficeGirl's comments, renomination within a week of the closing of the last AFD borders on WP:POINT. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel nothing but sympathy for all of those that are saying keep just on the sentiment of this man's impeccable military service record. Yet, sentiment is not notability. The Navy Cross is the second highest US military medal awarded and is the equivalent of the Air Force Cross, and the Distinguished Service Cross of the Army. A career making highlight for any military member -- yet, not exceedingly rare. Here are the numbers for each award: Navy Cross 6,920, Distinguished Service Cross 13,449, Air Force Cross 191. All of those men and women are no doubt courageous, but certainly not all of them are notable. An impressive military record is not, by itself, notability anymore than an impressive career at a major corporation is, by itself, notability. Show me evidence that this man had a singular impact on the military or on history at-large that is somewhat widely recognized and I would be all for keeping this article. As it is, however, Schmuck is just coming off as one of the many thousands of highly decorated military officers who have also remained historically anonymous. And also as it is, the article (originally created by User:FrankSchmuck), looks like little more than a memorial to a relative. Please, prove me wrong; if this person is so notable where's the independent sources confirming it? JGardner 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Perhaps speedily as a WP:POINT violation.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:03, 20 November 2006 (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.