Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Coulston


 * 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. Considering bahamut0013 to advocate deletion bacause the improvements he asks for have not occurred.  Sandstein  06:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

John C. Coulston

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

"John C. Coulston (also known as “Jack Coulston”), was the real deal, the kind of man the movies try to portray: the handsome, brave, loyal hero." You've got to be kidding me. A run-of-the-mill US serviceman and businessman, no sign of notability. Fences &amp;  Windows  00:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per criteria one of WP:PEOPLE. He has received a notable award for his war service.  However, the article may need a rewrite, and citations should be made inline. Gosox(55)(55) 00:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do note that he has received significant coverage in only one source, an obituary in a local newspaper. The only other source in the article that even mentions his name only mentions his name. I have looked for other sources, and I can only find his marriage notice from 1951, a plain record of his attendance at a 1982 chemicals conference, and two possible notes about his military record that I can't access I can find nothing else online about the man (this primary source of a John Coulston talking about the Holocaust may or may not be the same man). We cannot write articles on people on the basis of an obituary in a local paper. Wikipedia is not a memorial or a genealogy website.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  07:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:MILPEOPLE - the Distinguished Service Medal is one or two steps below automatic notability - and his business career is unremarkable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Clarityfiend. Badger Drink (talk) 05:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  07:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: does not pass WP:MILPEOPLE in my opinion. A PUC is a unit award, so it does not add to notability IMO. The DSM is notable to an extent, but not enough by itself to satisfy MILPEOPLE. If the subject's actions were mentioned in significant detail in reliable secondary sources (such as books published by reliable publishers), it might help to improve notability. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a lit bit of clean up work formatting the references and in doing so found that most of the references do not mention the subject at all. They reference the existance of hotels, companies, etc, but not specifically the subject or if they do, only in passing. The only significant coverage is the obituary. I can't even find anything that confirms the award of a DSM. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional weak keep: if you know me, you know I disagree with the notion that service crosses don't confer sufficient notability. However, the sad state of the article makes me hesitate. If not's not made NPOV and better referenced (most of the current refs don't mention the man at all, and all but one that do only in passing), my vote changes to weak delete when the AfD ends.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep:Much research potential;most cites preinternet;serving his country thru 7 major campaigns deserves retention [olemisterpete] 11:34 30 April 2010 — Olemisterpete (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2010 (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.