Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Forester


 * 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. Consensus is clear. I don;t see the pt of moving to Drafts -- its not as if a better article would be acceptable, because his career does not have notability in the first place.  DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark A. Forester

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability per WP:MILPEOPLE. Article is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to draft. This is the perfect example of an article that doesn't belong in main space but with content that should be kept somewhere. It fails notability, but deleting it would fail WP:PRESERVE as some references and facts could reasonably belong to an article related to Operation Enduring Freedom. Diego (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree - move to user space. Deb (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Can someone please explain which sections need to be taken out? Alask8er (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not so much of what gets taken out, but what we do not have to put in. The guidance in MILPEOPLE (posted above) gives us notability standards which we should follow. Forester did not receive DSMs or DSCs or AFCs, or the MOH. Nor did he have a significant role in major battles. His memorial is properly set out at . – S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)  Also, his valor is confirmed and published at Military Times Hall of Valor. 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails to meet notability guidelines, his death precludes the likelihood of him later gaining notability.  While the death of youth in war is tragic and I am sure his contribution was heroic, Wikipedia is not a memorial.  It looks like others have done a fine job across the internet with memorials, and that is where they belong.  EricSerge (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete' - I fail to see the utility of moving this article into draft space. As EricSerge has pointed out, this person does not meet notability guidelines, nor is there any likelihood of that happening in the near future. -- Whpq (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The utility is pointed out at WP:PRESERVE. Even if the subject is not notable, verifiable facts and references may still be used at other articles. Diego (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reference is www.findagrave.com. The only fact that confirms is where he is buried.  This is not really what WP:PRESERVE is talking about.  EricSerge (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You forget added above. And yes, this is exactly what PRESERVE is about - if you hide verifiable information that is not problematic, it's impossible to accumulate knowledge through a slow and steady process. Diego (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to draft or User space. This is an article by a new and inexperienced editor, who should be given a chance to improve the article per, our policy not to bite the newcomers., you can get help on creating articles at the Teahouse. -   t  u coxn \ talk 00:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing whatsoever to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete It's clear the writer was familiar with the subject and has included their "most notable" achievements but I do not feel that there is enough there to meet our guidelines. The draft space is still subject to WP:BLP and I do not see it being likely that this person does when conducting WP:BEFORE. In all best practices of the deletion policy this article should be deleted. I am sympathetic to the WP:BITE perspective of this nomination but I believe the article and it's potential have been fairly evaluated. I actually believe this editor has done a very good job at their first article but no amount of work would appear to make it eventually meet our guidelines. Mkdw talk 23:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand BLP. It's for living people. Diego (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely missed that they were deceased and BLP. Thanks for catching that. Mkdw talk 21:00, 1 February 2014 (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.