Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Harris (U.S. Marine)


 * 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) 12:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Larry Harris (U.S. Marine)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't understand how this article passed new page reviewers. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete No claim of notability. The NPP was right to pass it, though, as they have no knowledge of whether the action in Helmand was sufficiently noteworthy. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep another in a long line of well-written, adequately sourced articles on long-dead soldiers dragged to AfD for no apparent reason (WP:SOLDIER is an essay)... jp×g 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol what? Just because an article is well-written and adequately sourced does not mean he passes WP:GNG. Lettlerhello • contribs 20:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you need to say that. "Fails WP:SOLDIER is not a reason to delete. It is absolutely possible to fail SOLDIER and pass GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Based on San Diego Union Tribune, Military Times, and Fox5. It's not the strongest case, but it is there. IF NSOLDIER had the same standards as NACTOR or NSPORTS, they would easily pass.  // Timothy :: t | c | a  12:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Source Evaluation

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * MilitaryTimes does cover Harris, but it also covers a bunch of other Silver Star recipients, so it isn't exclusive SIGCOV. Both San Diego sources do go into detail, but I'd expect more SIGCOV if someone truly met GNG. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject seems to be notable. A couple secondary references to show this. Although it isn't well written, it still meets Wikipedia standards. CAVETOWNFAN (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GNG. He needs WP:SIGCOV. Lettlerhello • contribs 03:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sources are weak, at best. Soldiers with far higher honors (e.g. the Navy Cross) do not qualify either, so why would he? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing (as it currently stands) to meet GNG - I see in the sources some local coverage in news, and some military sources, but nothing seems substantial and independent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: reading WP:SOLDIER (a notability guide) tells me that earning the highest military decoration merits notability. This fellow received the Silver Star; the highest US decoration is the Medal of Honour. It is challenging to observe this fellow earn notability for WP other than his passing. Said respectfully. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay and so has "no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Tell it to the Marines. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Seems to fall on the borderline line of WP:GNG, and doesn't get any traction from the advisory NSOLDIER. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete while ignoring WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG is apparently not met. Military times is just a copy of his medal citation, not independent coverage, the two DOD sources are not in-depth coverage, which leaves us with two San Diego area publications covering him (one major, one local). I'd expect more to establish notability here. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Any SIGCOV is in local or regional media which one would expect would be different should they actually be notable. The one "major" source is borderline SIGCOV. That still leaves us needing multiple intellectually different sources. I ignore SNG's when it comes to AfD's simply because most SNG's, and really all should, presume notability. Under WP:N you may presume notability if there is reasoned confidence that SIGCOV will be written in the future to allow the subject to pass GNG criteria (notes included at the bottom for clarity). I don't see that being the case here so it fails notability criteria at this time. -- A Rose Wolf  17:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe it passes WP:GNG, although the sourcing can certainly be improved. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Military honors two for valor with Silver Stars and Pendleton training event renamed to honor fallen Marine prove the general notability guidelines have been met.  D r e a m Focus  00:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept, but it needs improvement. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as stands. Little more than stub article standard (WP:GNG significant coverage?). No details as to notability for actions as opposed to remembered by Harris Trail renaming. Everyone fallen is remembered, but surely this could open a deluge of articles to those fallen who maybe have a street named after them by residents of their home town?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The people who are voting keep are baselessly saying that two verifiable sources makes a person pass GNG (we could make millions of articles of people with that many sources). Lettlerhello • contribs 17:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lettler says that like it would be a bad thing. Wikipedia already has millions of articles and every time we add another million, this is a cause for celebration. It is our explicit policy that there is no practical limit to the number of articles and so it's not a problem. But attempting to destroy and diminish Wikipedia is disruption. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my point. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Um... Isn't that the point of GNG? Make sure pages arent created for every single thing, but maintain a low bar to include quite a bit of things if people are willing to take the time to write about it? I have always interpreted "multiple" to simply require two or more sources meeting the other requirements. Once that is met, content inclusion is determined by verifiability, which doesn't have the same sigcov requirement. -2pou (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete More than 100,000 people have received the Silver Star. We need better in-depth signifcant coverage than local news to establish notability here. Reywas92Talk 19:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm seeing mostly circular coverage with little independent sourcing. Intothatdarkness 19:18, 2 February 2021 (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.