Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary C. Ross


 * 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. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Gary C. Ross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NOT NEWS. Merely being the first make it suitable for Ripley's, not an encycopedia. With respect o other possible notability, he does not meet the standards for military officers, nor for authors. The GNG guideline is irrelevant here, since the policy  NOT NEWS is a limitation of that.  DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources here extend over a couple of years, so I am not seeing NOT NEWS as an issue. Artw (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see nothing after 2013. Looking at the material very carefully, I think the it is basically a violation of WP:AUTOBIO, containing irrelevant minor details about his navy career & non encyclopedic personal details about his later activities . It also is advocacy, and is a gross failure of WP:NPOV I note, Furthermore, that this is a BLP, and not all the material has reliable sourcing.  DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Primary author of the article appears to have a COI as they have the same user name as the partner / spouse of the subject, as listed in the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gary C. Ross is a LGBT activist and was a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, interviewed by Tamron Hall on MSNBC, honored by Aisha Tyler at the NewNowNext Awards, and notably received a judgement in his favor which declared U.S. Code denying military benefits to married same-sex couples as unconstitutional. Gary C. Ross is also a published author in a two-time Los Angeles Times Bestseller which was selected by the Chief of Naval Operations for his prestigious Official Reading List. I tried to provide neutral facts in the article. I am providing addition information and links here because I respect this process and I am reluctant to further edit the article to avoid COI. And for the record, we planned a private wedding and we did not notify the AP to claim "first" — they contacted us. Dan (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC) I noticed your recent editing of the article. Navy Times states, "Three retired Navy captains reviewed Ross’ records for red flags, and each independently concluded that the biggest red flag stemmed from his 2008 troubles on Stennis." They did not mention specific troubles and they certainly did not characterize the troubles as "an incident during a nuclear drill." LCDR Ross transparently told Navy Times author, Sam Fellman, about an incident during a training scenario and you make it sound like a reactor meltdown. The three retired Navy captains went on to note "a rebound in his performance." In addition, the Navy Times article does not conclude whether or not LCDR Ross mutually left the Nuclear Navy. The tone of your editing and your edit summaries do not seem neutral. Dan (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC) LCDR Ross cooperated with Sam Fellman and the Navy Times article is generally accurate. I referenced the Navy Times article when I mentioned the possibility of bias, but you pieced it together to make it sound as bad as possible. That is not neutral. Dan (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge with Don't ask, don't tell. I can't find any good sources for his military career, so it looks like a WP:BIO1E. I don't think it's a WP:BLP1E as Ross seemed to have made a concious effort to get press publicity for his wedding. I don't really care about whatever alleged COI the creator has, it's not like they've gone and committed mass murder or anything, and that can be fixed by our normal editing and deletion policies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am the primary author and I am married to the subject. I apologize because I have minimal experience writing and editing articles on Wikipedia and I find it difficult to navigate all of the policies and procedures. The subject and I planned a private wedding in Vermont and we were surprised when it caught the attention of the AP and gained international attention. The purpose of this article was not to focus solely on the historic significance of our marriage,       but Gary C. Ross was a plaintiff who won a federal lawsuit for equal benefits. He is also an LGBT activist, author, and speaker. Even now, he is challenging the fairness of military promotion boards with regards to LGB personnel. Please do not underestimate the impact of his ongoing efforts. Last weekend, we received an email from one of his previous commanding officers (a Navy Captain) who said, "Just a quick note to say hello from deployment and to let you know how proud I continue to be of your roles as trailblazers on the path leading to this week’s SCOTUS decision.  I know it hasn’t been smooth or easy, but your courage and determination serve as great examples to those who come after you." Dan (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't all those sources describing the same One event? None of those sources delved deeply into biographical material, simply reporting a "first". The remaining military material is all standard, honorable, military service similar to hundreds of thousands of other soldiers and sailors. Honorable, but nothing close to the criteria listed in WP:MILPEOPLE. Being an activist and choosing to get married on a certain day and notifying the Associated Press to claim "first" is not notability, it's basically a press release. As to activist, author, and speaker none of those items are cited in the article with reliable, substantial sources to demonstrate notability in those respects. He does not meet WP:Soldier and WP:Author either. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dual Freq, I provided sources about One event in response to your edit summary in the article where you said, "you'll note that neither politico nor cbs actually say they were they first." However, the article includes additional notability.
 * Thanks, but I just would point out that he does not appear to be the sole author of any of those books and is not on the by-line / cover as an editor for "In the Shadow of Greatness" as shown on Amazon.com. I don't think that writing a chapter or a portion of a chapter in a book indicates notability as described in WP:AUTHOR. I'm not saying anything is wrong with that or with him, just that not everyone is notable as an author, soldier, etc. Facebook or linkedin is adequate for most people to self publish their biography, not wikipedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * LCDR Ross was selected by his classmates to be a contributing author of In the Shadow of Greatness. (The book appears to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but not the contributing authors who created the book?)
 * I wrote it as neutrally as possible without omitting the basic facts as you initially did, choosing only to add his version of the story. It was a nuclear reactor drill, in which, according to the article, "both the reactors were scrammed" and later after the incident "the reactor officer pulled his qualifications and found him culpable." I'd say a fistfight during a nuclear reactor scramming is a pretty serious incident. I think I did OK summarizing several paragraphs of text. I did not say meltdown, I said a "drill". This is the problem that happens when there is a COI issue, we can't drop out parts of the story we don't like because it doesn't fit our chosen narrative. I'll grant you that none of this would need to be mentioned if the claims of discrimination were not being discussed and none of the article is notable. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "the reactor officer pulled his qualifications and found him culpable," but she had him back on watch within two weeks.


 * Keep Perhaps will some COI checking, but subject seems notable. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, the material already in the Don't ask, don't tell article adequately covers this subject and the WP:Oneevent. The rest of the material fails to meet WP:Soldier and WP:Author. None of the rest of the biographical material seems to have been published or noted by the media covering the one event. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even the first same-sex military marriage, but one of the first. Just not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination. Obviously there is some useful information which can be included elsewhere - if it hasn't already (like at Don't ask, don't tell per the suggestions above). Otherwise the subject doesn't appear to be notable per WP:GNG (lacks "significant" coverage in independent reliable sources). Likewise fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:AUTHOR as far as I can see. I'm also concerned about the COI and advocacy aspects the article seems to present (is Wikipedia being used here as a forum to question the validity of an administrative decision, i.e. his non-promotion and discharge for instance?) Overall, a fairly junior officer with a relatively average / normal / undistinguished career that seems little different from all the others who have trodden the same path (setting aside the LGBT issues which as I said should be addressed elsewhere - but even then only briefly so as not to breach WP:UNDUE). Anotherclown (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2015 (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.