Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Michel


 * 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. Notability as defined in WP:N states that:

those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention.

There is no assertion of notability anywhere in this article as per WP:N or WP:BIO, hence the consensus is delete. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

John E. Michel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Working in the United States Air Force does not make you notable. CV of a non-notable person Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - An ordinary officer, one of perhaps 20,000 who have been in the U.S. military. We applaud their service, but not every one of these 20,000 or more officers rates an encyclopedia entry. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of those 20,000 are not generals! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:SOLDIER, as well as WP:GNG. Book may be notable, maybe not, but not sufficient anyway to give him notability. — crh 23   &thinsp;(Talk) 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not appears to have dome anything to assert notability. Donnie Park (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Book is self-published via Morgan James Publishing which calls itself "the first hybrid publisher to blend the strength of traditional publishing with the flexibility of self-publishing." There is nothing else notable about the person. LaMona (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per OP etc. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as simply nothing suggesting a better Wikipedia article, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister   talk  05:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously those who have said he fails WP:SOLDIER haven't actually read it. He's a general officer so clearly meets criterion #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps I am misreading it (I am no expert on military rank) but WP:SOLDIER would seem to cover this Brigadier General.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you're not misreading it. WP:SOLDIER has always been held to cover brigadier generals (and indeed also brigadiers in Commonwealth armies). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy reads like this: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: 3)Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents;"
 * It doesn't say that any general qualifies, it says that they will "almost always have sufficient coverage" to qualify, (my emphasis) which is a rather odd way to say it. Are we to conclude that the coverage is there even if we haven't found it? It seems that is how many are interpreting it. It also says: "Conversely, any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is not notable." The only viable reference we have here is his bio at af.mil, which means that we have to determine if that is a primary document. For most BLPs, a bio at the employer's site is considered a primary document. LaMona (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look to me as though anyone commenting here has really looked for sources - I was quickly able to find interviews at National Geographic, Huffingtonpost and ZDNet, along with articles published under his byline at Military Times and Harvard Business Review. It's not like the guy is invisible - or entirely self-published.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I am tempted to delete per consensus, but would like to see further admin input. WP:SOLDIER is slightly imprecise; a brigadier-general is of sufficiently high rank, but he appears never to have commanded significant forces in combat, which the policy stipulates; commanding a training formation in Afghanistan may or may not qualify. He does not appear to satisfy WP:SOLDIER under any other criterion, given that the mere fact of his rank is not sufficient. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I read WP:SOLDIER to confer notability if any of the criteria are met, not all of them; and #3 ("Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents") would appear to apply without anything further required. But as I said, I could be wrong; and so welcome further input too.  JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From my reading of that, the crucial part is before the numbered points: "individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage..." i.e. the essay is pointing out that high-ranking officers tend to have had significant coverage in RS such that WP:BIO is met, but it is not an automatic rule that those with a certain rank are notable. So the question is whether the sources provided by JohnInDC above are sufficient to confer notability. It's tricky because the subject of those sources is more his book rather than himself. SmartSE (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2016 (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.