Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John W. Collins (retired military officer)


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Johntex\talk 02:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

John W. Collins (retired military officer)
Speedy delete was contested Davodd 07:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not grounds for an AfD. With that said, this is just not quiiite notable for me.  Weak delete. JDoorj a m     Talk 07:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Maaaassive WP:VANITY alert per page history moves this from Neutral into Delete territory. ~ trialsanderrors 08:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I do think there is sufficient notability here, but unfortunately WP:VANITY = delete. Stu   ’Bout ye!  09:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I don't care how well you've served your country, vanity articles don't belong here. RedRollerskate 12:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete He seems to have a very storied career... but I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO criterial for inclusion. Willing to reconsider if anyone can assert how he meets WP:BIO.--Isotope23 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment article is gone, did it go speedy despite being contested?--Isotope23 16:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I didn't realize this was being vetted at AfD. Collinjo had blanked the page, and removed the reference to it at John Collins, so I interpreted that as a request for deletion per CSD G7, and tagged it for speedy. I'm sure this wasn't just a mistake on Collinjo's part, as he blanked it again after it was reverted by a bot. Dancter 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that counts as CSD-G7, but it should probably still be closed at AfD. trialsanderrors 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Had I known then, I would never have tagged it. It's back now, so let this be my vote to delete. While the subject is an accomplished individual, as far as I can tell, the only actual notability asserted is for the Hall of Fame of the US Army OCS. That doesn't automatically warrant an article for any of 2,400 people. Dancter 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Appears this article is not strong enough; I have deleted it (again).
 * No Controversy Needed


 * I guess that makes it a speedy now. Thank you. ~ trialsanderrors 20:40, 16 June 2006 (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.