Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Shames


 * 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. Nakon 05:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Edward Shames

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Edward Shames served as both an enlisted man and officer in the 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II, fighting in all the regiment's battles. He did not rise above lieutenant on active duty and, although he was eventually promoted to colonel in the Army Reserve, he performed no acts to qualify him as notable under WP:SOLDIER. Post-war, Shames has led a quiet life with no activity to qualify him as notable. His role in the Band of Brothers miniseries was minor and he is minimally present in the book. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet</b> <i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> <b style="color: blue;">Talk</b> 01:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. <b style="color: red;">Georgia Army Vet</b> <i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> <b style="color: blue;">Talk</b> 01:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I respect your judgment through your work in MilHist, but aren't the WTAJ, KHON2, and East Valley Tribune articles not something towards the GNG? Thanks,
 * Keep <S>Delete</S> per nomL3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write)  02:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC) per below L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller!  (distænt write)  15:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete people do not become notable because of brief treatments in a miniseries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, I didn't see anything in the three articles that draws me to Shames as a person but I'll read through them again when I'm fresher.-- <b style="color: red;">Georgia Army Vet</b> <i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> <b style="color: blue;">Talk</b> 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If these are the references: WTAJ, KHON2, and East Valley Tribune then they're mostly observations about events by Shames. The one where Shames criticizes Band of Brothers and Ambrose's response might make a good source on either the article about the book or Ambrose or both. (I'm glad I never took history from Ambrose.)-- <b style="color: red;">Georgia Army Vet</b> <i style="color: white;">Contribs</i> <b style="color: blue;">Talk</b> 18:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the breakdown, . L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write)  19:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - He is the subject of the Ian Garner Book, . He is also somewhat active as a speaker about his life and easy company, see https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Edward+D+Shames%22&offset=4, https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Ed+Shames%22&dr_year=2002-2014, and https://www.newspapers.com/search/#query=%22Edward+Shames%22&dr_year=2002-2014). I agree that members of Easy Company are not necessarily suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia based on their characterization in the series of books about them, but I think that those who have received in-depth coverage in other sources as a result of the books and tv series as well as those who are the main subject of one of the books should not be discounted. I also think that Gardner may be a more reliable source than Ambrose, and thus coverage by Gardner may be more reliable and give better evidence that an article passes WP:V than coverage by Ambrose. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think Smmurphy has nailed it.  There are enough sources about Shames to meet GNG and write a decent encyclopedia article.  It's not the most conventional route to notability, but there seems to be an enduring interest in some of the men of Easy Company.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion above establishing substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Verifiability alone is not enough to guarantee an article, and the GNG is not a right to inclusion, as WP:N makes clear. We have to use common sense and discern what coverage is substantial and what isn't, and that includes looking at what the coverage is about. Since the subject did nothing in his life that is noteworthy, and the biggest coverage is because of the book/miniseries, it is reasonable for us to discount the other sourcing as routine or being about the company as a whole. The one line keep arguments here are pretty weak, as is the assertion that passing WP:V is enough to have an article. On the weight of the policies and guidelines, this article should not exist, and I'd encourage the next person looking at this to close to look past the nose count and at the very least consider another relist. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * notability isn't the same as Wiktionary:notability. Osprey is a reliable publisher of military history, and Gardner's book was, I think, held to higher standards than Ambrose's. So it seems to me that Shames was the subject of a pretty legit microhistory. As a result of his inclusion in the BOB universe, his life is frequently covered in depth by other sources. He may not have done anything we think is notable, but the editors at Osprey and of many newspapers found him interesting enough. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not enough for notability under our standards, and even if it was, notability is not a guarantee of inclusion. The coverage must be substantial and have depth. The newspaper links you have shown above don't work for me, but from what I can make out of the search results that are shown to the paywall, they are all local or regional coverage at best, which is a strong argument against notability, not one for it. You are arguing for WP:V to be the inclusion criteria, which it is not. We have to look at depth of sourcing, and basic coverage in microhistories by someone who is utterly unimportant in the grand scheme of things is not enough for a Wikipedia article. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I disagree, but I just wasn't clear what you were saying. By the way, I highly recommend checking out WP:The Wikipedia Library, which is how I have access to newspapers.com. TWL gives wikipedia editors with at least a small amount of experience gratis subscriptions with many different partners. My favorites are ProjectMUSE (I am the account coordinator there) and newspapers.com. ProjectMUSE and another partner, Questia, give full access to numerous academic books and journals (although not this one, I think); newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com do what you would guess, and other popular partners include Fold3 and JSTOR (which has a waiting list). Depending on the areas you primarilly edit in, I highly recomend it. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with almost everything Tony writes. This article is an example of why WP:N is a guideline - we need to go beyond the GNG and exercise editorial discretion as to whether this subject should have an article.  The interest in Shames is largely an accident; there are many soldiers who did as much (or more), but didn't have the good fortune to be part of this "microhistory".  However, we do have this enduring interest and good quality of sources, and I see those two elements as the backbone of notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and the coverage offered above is insufficient. Routine coverage in the context of a larger story does not equate to encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2018 (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.