Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Witmer


 * 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   redirect to Last Letters Home. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Michelle Witmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable soldier D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Soldier's death covered in a documentary on HBO, establishing notability. ABC News did a piece on her. There is coverage in books and newspapers. This comes off as an incredibly rude, weak WP:Not notable nomination. Vodello (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rude? Excuse me? Another soldier profiled in this show ended with a redirect and delete, so I hardly think this nomination is weak, or a strong keep. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  16:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Vodello (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure how that applies. Altho WP:NOTNEWS might. She is no Jessica Lynch or Pat Tillman D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  19:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How does an AfD nomination equate to rude?  bahamut0013  words deeds 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am capable of assuming good faith, but your comment, as well as this nomination, is ignorant. The nom could have put this article up for deletion with a less disrespectful and consensus weak rationale. This woman is a soldier that was a casualty of war, and received significant coverage from books, newspapers, and television. Donde's comments repeatedly treat the subject like trash. You can nominate an article for deletion without being utterly disrespectful. I stand by my claim that this subject has received enough significant coverage to establish General Notability Guidelines, trumping all the essays and WP:JNN votes. Vodello (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not ignorant simply because I disagreed with you; if you are indeed capable of AGF, then you need to do so immediately becore you cross the incivility line again. Nobody has treated the article's subject like trash either. I don't see why you feel the need to be defenseive, and AfD nomination is not a slight against nor disrespect of the person; rather, it just says that she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The only significant coverage arose from her being featured in the LLH documentary. If there is indeed significant coverage, then where is it? The article cites only LLH, one newspaper article, and a Social Security database. In any case, sheer quantity of media coverage for one event does not equate to notability; additionally, WP:NOT is a policy and would trump a guideline.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On a somewhat related note, while reliable, I don't think citing the Social Security Death Index is appropriate on Wikipedia. It is more of a genealogy resource for non-famous people. If you need to cite it, it means the topic isn't notable. Notable topics will have plenty of other sources for year and place of death. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete: Due to WP:BIO1E. If there is a suitable article to merge it into, merge; otherwise, delete. -- BenTels (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Last Letters Home. Markus Schulze 16:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per WP:BIO1E and the above arguments Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per Nick-D. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Last Letters Home. No real independant notability as a person, per WP:MILPEOPLE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and WP:BIO1E; and precedent per Articles for deletion/Leonard Cowherd.  bahamut0013  words deeds 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability needs to be lasting, and despite the media coverage I don't believe it meets WP:MILMOS/N. As such WP:NOTNEWS seems relevant. Likewise argements like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for keep generally should be avoided at AfD. Anotherclown (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. It was the nominator that used WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument to support deletion. "Well they deleted X, so they should delete Y as well." When I link to this to counter someone's weak argument, I expect them to read it or already understand it. In the future, I'll use WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST to clear up any confusion. Vodello (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the nominator used the non-notability argument. It's right up there where he nominated the article!  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect: unfortunately I don't believe the subject has lasting notability in relation to Wikipedia's understanding of the term (see N), however, I think a redirect to the Last Letters Home article per Bahamut0013's suggestion would be a way to preserve the search term, which seems like it might be something that some internet users might search for. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is nothing notable about this soldier other than she died. It's sad, but that's not an inclusion citerion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2010 (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.