Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristoffer Domeij


 * 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 no consensus. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Kristoffer Domeij

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete totally fails our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep soldier who holds the record for the most deployments to be killed in action -- 14 deployments! Of all the celebrities on wikipedia, this is the one you want to erase from history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindaljb (talk • contribs)
 * Keep The start of the article reads: Kristoffer Bryan Domeij (October 5, 1982 – October 22, 2011) was a United States Army soldier who holds the record for the U.S. soldier with the most deployments to be killed in action. He served four deployments in Iraq and at least nine in Afghanistan.  Sounds like a notable enough accomplish to get an article on Wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why someone would vote on an AFD discussion by looking at the lead, but ok. Lettlerhello • contribs 01:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Number of deployments is completely unreferenced.Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep another in a long line of well-written, adequately sourced articles on long-dead soldiers dragged to AfD (WP:SOLDIER is an essay) with the same couple people voting to delete. jp×g 15:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mztourist mostly. The deployment record is impossible to verify and isn't notable in itself (and very likely debatable, but that's another discussion). Intothatdarkness 17:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons cited by jp. The deployment record is verified.  WP:Verifiability. Repeatedly in multiple WP:RS.  User:Intothatdarkness, that you missed that (and boldly asserted it could not be veriified) shows the cursory nature of your research inquiry, and the vapidity of your position.  Article contents and new references establishes his notability.  No compliance with WP:Before.  Meets WP:GNG.  WP:HEY. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Vapidity of my position"? Really? And your position about the deployment record's reliability seems to show a complete unfamiliarity with how these things work. Intothatdarkness 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That you don't like the reliable sources does not make them magically disappear. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you rework it to state he holds the record within the Ranger Regiment for the most deployments before being KIA (which is how the sources frame it) it might be more believable. From my reading of what's been posted so far it's a very specific record that doesn't take the rest of JSOC or SOCOM into consideration. And even with that said, I'm not convinced it's notable. Intothatdarkness 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete World records (or rather "American records") are not automatically notable. So far none of the "keep" voters has even addressed the question of why that particular record is notable. ApLundell (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability (people) reads at the top On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. So yeah, this counts.   D r e a m Focus  03:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Easily surpasses WP:GNG, which you have overlooked. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 11:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not overlooked any of the things the folk from ARS have accused me of. (They tend to make the same complaint about everyone who ever disagrees with them, so I won't take it personally.)
 * Being a record holder is not automatically notable. Virtually everybody is the superlative something. It is still required to show that their life or achievements are notable, not simply unique.
 * That hasn't been done for this article, and I don't believe it can. ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AP, I am not a member of ARS and I am not here to attack you for disagreeing with me. You deserve your opinion and I am not here to convince you or anyone else that I am right and you are wrong. They will look at what we say and make their own assessment. That being said, I would like to point out that, in case you are unaware, Wikipedia does not concern itself with the notability of the action but the notability of the subject, unless the article is about the action. What I mean is that we are to look, not at the substance of the reliable sources but whether the subject receives adequate coverage in those sources. Wikipedia does not care how notable or distinguished the information is. His service record and length doesn't matter and doesn't have to be proved. Are the sources reliable and do they give him intellectually independent significant coverage? It could be about things you might feel are insignificant but if they give it adequate coverage and ties it to him then it can be included in the litmus test of notability. Wikipedia is indifferent to half the arguments made here from both sides except the facts based on policy, even begrudgedly, flawed policy. -- A Rose Wolf  18:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I reviewed all of the evidence presented both within the article and also conducting my own BEFORE search. This person does, indeed, fail WP:SOLDIER. In my mind this essay holds as much credence as all the SNG's that give subjects unfair advantages over other subjects like WP:NPROF. I digress, in looking at the sources a few things jump out. #1 - One argument here is that he is notable solely due to the length and number of combat tours. That may be the case on military bases and in the minds and hearts of those who knew him and value his service. Wikipedia, to be frank, is indifferent to feelings and emotions, only facts matter based on policy. I did not take into account his service record length or number of tours. #2 - I counted every reliable source that repeated the same information almost verbatim as one source as per criteria for multiple intellectually different sources. This still leaves the subject with coverage in reliable sources that may be similar but do contain intellectually different material as well, on top of the reliable sources that are wholly intellectually different. #3 - The subject received significant coverage in the reliable sources that did include him. Therefore, setting point 1 aside and taking points 2 and 3 into consideration, my assessment is that the subject passes criteria found in WP:N for inclusion. -- A Rose Wolf  17:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a misrepresentation of the Milhist guideline which starts "an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." and ends "a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion for sure. I am not here to change your view only show how and why I voted the way I did. As I stated, I didn't look at the Milhist guideline because many guidelines are based on presumption of notability which can be rebutted as is proper and we see here is why we have AfD's in the first place. I look solely at basic notability as described in the entirety of WP:N (including notes at the bottom) minus all the SNG's because most are highly unreliable and vague. I also conduct a BEFORE search for sources that may not be located in the article itself. There is significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are intellectually independent. The content of that coverage does not matter so long as it is significant and in a reliable source with exception of the sources in which the content is mostly identical or repeating the same information. According to note 4 at the bottom of WP:N, these sources are not intellectually different and therefore should be counted as one source. That is what I did in my search and still found enough to keep the article. If nothing else I am consistent in my approach across all AfD's and when I have made a mistake I will admit it. -- A Rose  Wolf  15:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And WP:GNG includes sources that exist, even if they aren't referenced in the article. See the shortcut on the right hand side of this comment. And if you had done WP:Before before proposing the AFD Actually I didn't add the references on the talk page.  I rewrote the whole article.
 * (The above was moved for user as it split an existing comment in half. It wasn't tagged and only they know where is should go and what context it was said in. I defer to them to decide its fate and may delete all of it and this following comment made by myself should they deem it necessary.) -- A Rose  Wolf  15:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete He's deployed 14 times, but did he actually do anything other than not coming home in the end? Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * *What he did or did not do is of no consequence to the policy on notability. The only criteria is significant coverage in reliable sources plus all the other words we can use to describe it. That's it. If the garbage man down the road gets that for simply being a garbage man then he deserves an article. I know, its an absurd example but sometimes when we provide that we show the simplistic depth of discrimination the policy allows for. It's not about what was done but what was reported and to what detail. -- A Rose Wolf  22:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:GNG includes sources that exist, even if they aren't referenced in the article. See the shortcut on the right hand side of this comment. And if WP:Before was donebefore proposing the AFD, we wouldn't here at all. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:GNG even though fails WP:SOLDIER. Kolma8 (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.