Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Ryan (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Michael A. Ryan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not the subject of coverage by unrelated parties. Previously, the best available coverage was apparently a biography published by the military. Since the last AfD, no development on sourcing has happened. This tidbit is obviously the subject's résumé and published by the military itself — it's not suitably reliable for biographical content about living persons. Previous versions included a wholesale copyvio of this source. Now, as a result, no content is supported at all... While the applicable essay-turn-guide (not a guideline) refers to a WP:GNG-based presumption, and states someone will "almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if a general officer, however this is not such a case. The guideline still demands significant coverage, and none is jumping out at me. JFHJr (㊟) 00:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources is a problem, but the consensus is that military leaders at this level are in fact notable and worth covering in articles. I can live with that. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as he meets WP:SOLDIER #3. He has a very common name, and Google News Archive, the obvious tool for finding sources, is out of service right now. A biography published by the military itself is reliable for basic biographical facts, just as a university's faculty profile is reliable for a professor.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  17:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found significant coverage by NBC News in 2009 of his service in Afghanistan. Just as WP:SOLDIER says, a careful search will almost always yield coverage in reliable sources.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While Ryan is noted and quoted in the article he is not the primary subject of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is about an international incident that he investigated personally, he is mentioned in the first paragraph, his involvement is reported to be significant, he is quoted at length, and the article links to another article that also discusses his role. This is far beyond a passing mention.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Flag officers are considered to be notable for the simple fact of being flag officers. Sources available. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then would brigadier general (retired) Mark Bircher be notable as well? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If Mark Bircher was an active duty (not just reserve) general officer, then the answer is "yes", . I was previously unaware of this redirect to the political campaign. That is the usual practice for political candidates who are not otherwise notable. But if he meets WP:SOLDIER then in my view, he too should have a NPOV article, but not campaign literature masquerading as an article. Given that the election was a week ago and he lost, I would support undoing the redirect. I think that WP:SOLDIER should be a formal guideline but it has not yet achieved that status.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details on his service record or rank at various times in his military career. He retired as a marine reserve brigadier general I believe. I also don't know in what capacity he served in Iraq. If it was with a reserve unit does that matter? Or would a posting to Iraq constitute active duty? And I don't know what his rank was at the time. He also won a Bronze Star and he has also been a Blue Angel pilot. It seems like a close call to me so I was curious to get some input. There was also campaign coverage. The military has a page covering his career ins ome detail taht I believe is cited in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bronze Star isn't relevant to notability; either a MoH or multiple Silver Stars would be. Blue Angel pilot isn't notability in and of itself but probably gives him a big boost with regards to WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON; whereas having stars on the shoulders does, indeed, mean notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a general officer, he is notable per WP:SOLDIER, which although not an official guideline is a standard accepted by most who edit military articles on Wikipedia. And yes, Mark Bircher is notable too for the same reasons (being a reserve officer is irrelevant). I have reverted the change to a redirect there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment while WP:Soldier says "In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify..." they still need that coverage to meet GNG. If there are sources, would someone add them to the article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete on grounds that it fails GNG as the only sources provided (to date) are not independent of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable per WP:SOLDIER, as is Mark Bircher. We don't distinguish between regulars and reservists. I have no doubt that we can find information on both of them. Also, military articles can and should be sourced from military sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SOLDIER. He's a flag officer....William 20:36, 28 January 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.