Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest T. Cragg


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ernest T. Cragg

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

The subject doesn't meet notability requirements. He served his country, which is admirable, but he doesn't appear to have a military record any more distinguished than thousands of others who have served. The article was created by the subject's son which is a nice gesture but where would Wikipedia be if every child of military personnel decide to write articles about their parents? LargoLarry (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because the article subject meets the general notability guideline and the multiple reliable sources are linked from, and cited in, the article.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it is irrelevant who created the article, it is well written, notable and has reliable sources. Pahari Sahib  17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just because sources are linked from and cited in the article doesn't make the subject notable. The multiple sources include a high school year book, the USMA year book, a marriage notice, an unreferenced "oral history" interview, a listing in a handbook for military retirees, and an obituary written by the subject's son according to the article's discussion page. These don't seem to be very significant to me. LargoLarry (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Comment And yes, it is relevant who created an article if it was created by someone just to honor his late father on Memorial Day 2008, which he says at User:ecragg. LargoLarry (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, there are no references cited anywhere within the article. LargoLarry (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Seattle Times article and the Washington Post article are both cited as sources and linked from the article. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I really do think that's game over for the notability argument.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not "game over" at all. The Seattle Times item is just a marriage announcement. Getting married doesn't make someone notable. The Washington Post article is an obituary written by the subject's son, which can't be considered truly objective. LargoLarry (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability guideline says sources must be "independent of the subject", which excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. The obituary is a work produced by someone affiliated with the subject, namely his son. LargoLarry (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable - USAF bio link now updated. don't the Milhist project have specialist notability criteria? Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - would it be appropriate for me to comment, or does my conflict of interest exclude me? Ecragg (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would be perfectly appropriate. The closer will have the experience to give your comment the correct weight in the circumstances.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to make two observations:
 * The United States Air Force Biography web site was restructured (which broke ALL Wikipedia references to it). In this case the link has been repaired and his official biography is now accessable from the article.
 * My comments related to the copyright of the Washington Post obituary refered to the fact that the reporter took notes I sent him about my father's life after retirement and incorporated them verbatim into the obituary. I did NOT write the obituary. This is far more a comment on the current state of reporting in print media than upon notability. A reliable source that was independent of the subject (an editor at the Washington Post) decided he was notable enough to justify assigning a reporter to write an obituary about him and the newspaper subsequently published it. In addition another reliable source that was independent of the subject (the Washington Post Reporter) felt that my notes were significant enough for inclusion in the obituary. Any copyright issue associated with the obituary is now moot as that section was rewritten after Gene93k pointed out the issue.
 * One last comment, he was not "a listing in a handbook for military retirees", he was the author of the handbook. (see http://www.amazon.com/CAT-Revised-Space-Handbook-Retires/dp/B000GWICWA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244461890&sr=8-3) Ecragg (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article appears to be notable and references, albeit not inline, which is more of an issue of style.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The references are being moved to inline citations.Ecragg (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: subject was a major general, which seems fairly notable to me. Additionally I feel that the 'consistently receives awards' criteria is met by this subject (14 Air Medals, as well as many others). Further, the article has sources, most of which seem reliable. I don't feel that the fact that the original editor was his son is a problem, so long as that is made clear and everything is sourced. If it is sourced to reliable sources, then it is possible to detect and fix any bias. In this regard, some of the wording might need to be fixed up to make it more encyclopaedic, e.g "he loved hunting". — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a presumption that military officers who reach 'star' rank generally also meet WP:BIO (though this isn't assured), and this seems to be the case here. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Flag officers (generals and admirals) pretty defacto meet notability. Certainly far more so than minor league baseball players at the Class A level (3 below the majors) whom we have a slew of articles on.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:59, 9 June 2009 (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.