Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mcgoff


 * 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. v/r - TP 02:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

John Mcgoff

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I do get an overwhelming feeling that this particular persion is way too un-notable for inclusion in the wikipedia encyclopedia. → Aza Toth 15:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur. If he wins the election, that'll change, but for now he's just a candidate. DS (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 15:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: He's a brigadier general. Was it ever determined if having stars on your shoulders was sufficent for inherent notability? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:Military History he would have to hold flag rank or O7 or above. A Brig. General is O6.- William 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines of either WP:Military History or WP:Politician- William 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contrary to comments above, general officer rank of any level is sufficient for inclusion under WP:SOLDIER. In any case, a Brigadier General is of O7 rank in US terminology; he's of OF-6 rank in NATO terminology. . -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:Soldier is an essay, not a guideline, and is subordinate to the GNG. WP:Soldier says that if they are of high rank that the coverage probably exists and therefore show that they are notable. IF they don't have "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" then they are still not notable no matter what rank they hold. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you, I am well aware it is an essay and not a guideline. It is, however, unlike many, a very useful essay that has been written by people who know what they're talking about and is widely quoted in AfD discussions for good reason. Please also note that I was refuting a previous claim that Mcgoff's rank was not high enough to meet the criteria in this essay: not true. My opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 19:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - unless it is consensus that the "rank" rule gets him an automatic keep as a brigadier general. However, I am under the impression that the rule applies to generals or admirals in the REGULAR military, not the National Guard - which is a part-time force whose members have other "main" jobs. Aside from that "brigadier general" designation, his career has not marked him out as notable. His political activities (unsuccessful candidate, national committeeperson, county coroner) are not enough for notability. Having a staff position in military bureaucracy does not qualify. None of his medals make him notable, nor do his memberships (AMA? please!). Being president of a county medical society doesn't cut it. He has a few articles at Google Scholar, nothing earthshaking. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW if the article is kept the spelling should be changed to "McGoff". --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A general in the reserve forces holds exactly the same rank as a general in the regular forces. They are not lesser or subordinate to regular officers of the same rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they were inferior or subordinate. I just think an officer in the Reserve or National Guard is much less likely to meet the assumption at WP:SOLDIER that "an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they ... Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." In the present case, Google News Archive finds only references to his political campaigns or his work as county coroner - not a single news item just a single news item that I could find relating his service in the Indiana National Guard. QED. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction: I found one mention, an article in which he and others are quoted about a National Guard exercise. Still QED. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - not sufficiently notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficiently notable. Neutralitytalk 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. WP:SOLDIER applies equally to regulars and reservists. It was accepted that brigadier generals were on the border line, which is why the line was drawn here. I would argue that a reservist is more rather than less likely than a regular to be notable, as witnessed by his additional political activities. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:GNG which requires "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Having looked at the sources cited, I don't see that significant coverage, or it's there's some coverage but it's not independent, or it's not reliable. WP:Soldier (as I noted above) says that having his rank, the quality coverage may be out there but it doesn't say that GNG requirements don't have to be met; and if they are not met, then it fails the notability test. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2011 (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.