Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keir H. Stahlsmith


 * 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. WP:SNOW. And leaving this open any longer would just provide further opportunity for irrelevant flooding of the discussion and unfounded accusations by the article's author. should take a look at other AFDs to see what modes of discourse (and formatting) is standard and acceptable here. postdlf (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Keir H. Stahlsmith
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested speedy. Google search reveals few links, mostly to such sites as Facebook, Amazon, and pipl. In addition, I would note that Keir Stahlsmith‎ was repeatedly deleted almost three years ago, and was eventually salted; at least one of those article creations was by the creator of the current article. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Recreation of previously deleted material.  This new incarnation should probably be salted as well. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  04:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt this spelling A spot-check of the "references" reveals that most do not contain the name of this soldier. Some of the claims are furthermore obviously false (planned and executed 250,000 missions during 5 years of service?! That's one every 30 minutes, respectable...), and a clear criterion under which he should be in an encyclopedia I cannot find. "Excellent soldier" is not sufficient. --Pgallert (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the kind of junk that ends up in these nominations, and this bio, Keir H. Stahlsmith is well-cited for historical value. The last one was made by someone else who didn't know what they were doing, and passed the project over to me. Since he worked in a classified environment, all you will get are personal pages like social networks if you only Google. Encyclopedic material should have more value than just being found on a Google search. The historical, military relevance of modern aerial warfare should be considered before purging a valuable piece of history. Please wait until all verifiable records are in hand, and uploaded, before making a snap decision. His Social Security number is on many of these records, and needs to be protected carefully before they are uploaded. Thank you for giving this more time for proper reflection. Take care. KnightofZion (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please review. Keir H. Stahlsmith, Database Manager, AF Form 910, U.S. National Archives Military Service Records, September 2009. Added one pertinent military record demonstrating top performance in all cited areas of air combat; Theater Battle Management Core Systems, Air Tasking Orders, Database Management, technical work, and expertize. Please consider this significant data as a salute to history, the U.S. Air Force, and the exceptional work of Keir H. Stahlsmith. This is just one document of many that can be cited in the near future. Thank you for your considerations. KnightofZion (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

[|Reliability of sources] according to Wikipedia should be satisfied with a federal document, declassified for the relevance of the topic and context of the subject. Thank you.KnightofZion (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and please activate the previously deleted Wikipedia page, Keir Stahlsmith so it can be properly linked to this one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs) 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Intentionally Negligent, Misleading, and False Statements Don't make things up about true and verifiable statements, Pgallert. All you did was search for the name of the subject in a few sources? Please regard the full context of the sources, as the name of the subject (just like any government cleared citizen) would not be typical of a cursory glance. Air Operations are continual, and it's 500,000 processed missions (to include flown sorties and air drops), in under 3.5 years, which is still exceptionally rare, as Keir H. Stahlsmith held a staff position in under 4 years; also, Keir H. Stahlsmith was not a "soldier" but an Airman. Do your research before you make a fallacious argument. The point of this article is to express that the Database Manager executes every mission and sortie (everything that flies) in the entire Middle East (USAFCENT and CENTCOM), AOR (Area of Responsibility), which covers 79 coalition countries. The Air Tasking Order "Execution" takes place in the "Air Operations Center" and the Air Operations Database Manager is the only one in the war, responsible for the accuracy and timeliness of all flown missions. Check your sources, and please, again, don't make fallacious arguments on subjects you are not learned on. Thank you. RE: "Some of the claims are furthermore obviously false (planned and executed 250,000 missions during 5 years of service?! That's one every 30 minutes, respectable" "Excellent soldier" is not the argument. An example of modern aerial warfare in action and its impact using modern technological and scientific advances in theater war, is the argument. How many people know what the function of the Air Operations Database really is, or its crucial role in the air war? This historical reference is designed to impart unclassified material to the world in regard to an historical change in the way "decentralized execution" takes place. Also, it's not "one every 30 minutes," it's about 1,200 missions and sorties flying, or more, on average, every ATO period, every day. Please check the sources again, as you clearly haven't. I will report you if you for vandalism and abuse if you delete this page after making such remarks. Thank you. I'm certain this falls under "reasons not to delete a page" based on sheer bias or lacking expertise in the subject. Please refer to [|Wikipedia's deletion policy.] Also, in this policy is reference to reliability of sources:

Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

As of April 3, 2010, a proposed deletion process for unsourced biographies was established, requiring all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject. Once the article is tagged in this manner, the prod blp tag may not be removed until such a source is provided. If none is forthcoming the article may be deleted after 10 days. This does not affect any other deletion process.

Please review before making false statements: Reliability of sources according to Wikipedia should be satisfied with a federal document, declassified for the relevance of the topic and context of the subject. Thank you.KnightofZion (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC) KnightofZion (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please be advised: Consequences of harassment Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated incidents, that should not imply that they are acceptable or without consequences. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing.
 * I understand this is a dispute, but recent arguments border more closely on harassment[] and pretentious accusation, rather than legitimate reasoning and sound judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing:[|Disruptive:]


 * Repeatedly disregarding explanations for edits
 * Nomination by those who disregard the actual context, validity, and historical/encyclopedic relevance of the subject, not just the name or title found in a "Google" search, despite citations
 * Seemingly "campaigning" to alienate a productive editor/contributor
 * Exhausting a productive, rule-abiding contributor's patience

Signs of disruptive editing

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

In addition, such editors may:
 * Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.  An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
 * Cannot satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.
 * Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified citation needed tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
 * '''Does not engage in consensus building:
 * repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
 * repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
 * Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
 * Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Civility, No personal attacks, Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnightofZion (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Fails WP:GNG including the more specific WP:BIO. There is no substantial, independent, secondary coverage of this person in independent sources, other than two short notes in local papers: (i) a picture of him at the age of 6 months with his mother after his older brother died in a tornado, and (ii) a nice note when he finished basic training in the Air Force. The citations which are being claimed as a basis for notability is not a "widely known and significant award or honor" and the claimed accomplishments are not " widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - the latter guideline footnoted to clarify that, to meet that criteria, it would need to be something extensively written about by experts in the relevant field. The airman got a good performance report. Are we going to have a Wikipedia article on every kid who got a gold star and an A+ in red ink on a paper?Fladrif (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete and salt: at first, I thought this was a prank! Aside from the obvious recreation issues, this is a BLP that is not well-referenced: most of the cited refs don't mention this individual at all (raising COATRACK issues, seemingly trying to make this less a biography and more an article about aviation command and control operations), some are trivial mentions that offer no real biographical import, and the rest are not considered RS (mostly not independantly third party, a fitness report is certainly not even remotely reliable or even neutral); even if he really was involved in classified ops, there is no evidence that they existed or were notable, much less that he was integral to them. As I mentioned before, the article meanders from the subject to a strange aside regarding the films Ironman and Transformers... odd and irrelevant. There are obvious POV concerns, seeing as this thing smacks of puffery and disguising mundane tasks done as a part of his duties as notable achievements (I mean, c'mon, I've used TBMCS and GCCS and I'm not even an operations guy). And the meat of it is just plain notability: he fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:MILPEOPLE; absolutely nothing he has done sets him aside from all of the other airmen in his occupational specialty, no awards of note (his four are given to virtually every servicemember that survived a four year enlistment without getting thrown in the brig, and the "commemorative medals" are a joke that isn't even funny), no established innovation or significant contributions to military science or history, and of course, no recognition at all for what was an otherwise undistinguished career performing mundane duties. Lastly, slinging threats and Wikilawyering with anyone who disagrees isn't going to help.  bahamut0013  words deeds 15:56, 11 February 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.