Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Honors


 * 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. I've read this discussion twice over the last 24 hours, and I can't find any consensus here. Could very well eb worth discussing again in a year's time, but for now, there's no consensus here. Courcelles 00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Owen Honors

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject is the commander of an American aircraft carrier who recently received media attention when some "inappropriate" videos he made a couple of years ago became public. News coverage today says he has been relieved of command and will likely face some disciplinary measures, effectively ending his naval career. Prior to this event he was quoted briefly in the news in his capacity as a task force commander during some naval operations, but there hadn't been any significant coverage otherwise. The subject does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE or the general notability guidelines, and this appears to be a classic "one event" bio. FYI, the article was prodded immediately after creation, but that was removed by the creator.  Will Beback   talk    04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —   Will Beback    talk    04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete this article. I come to wikipedia to get basic facts. This guy is news worthy and I want to know who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. He currently falls under WP:BLP1E (no significant coverage before the incident). Jarkeld (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He was a senior commander on a carrier, with aircraft capable of nuclear strike, his judgement and character and the interaction between himself and those under his command and naval officers above him and the US political and media establishment is an ongoing issue. Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm  —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep I have to disagree and state he does meet WP:MILPEOPLE. He previously commanded the 6th fleet and currently is the captain of the world's largest naval vessel. 71.110.71.74 (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe 71.110.x.x is the same editor who created the article, which is nicely written aside from the notability issue.
 * I am the creator. Just like you are the nominator for deletion. Why would my opinion be worth less? Similarly, in the nomination you state that the article was prodded but removed by creator. The process says anyone can remove the prod tag for, "any reason whatsoever." --71.110.65.2 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense. It's customary to identify the article creator in AfDs. It just let's other editors know who you are in the debate.   Will Beback    talk    11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My reading of WP:MILPEOPLE, and I may be wrong, is that leading a large group confers notability only in combat. Honors commanded the 6th Fleet, and later the USS Enterprise, in non-combat deployments. It's not clear if planes from the carrier have flown combat sorties in Afghanistan since he took over in May 2010, but my understanding is that the Afghan combatants are not armed with significant anti-aircraft capabilities anyway. If so, the subject would not meet MILPEOPLE #6. I don't see any other criteria there which he'd meet either. Perhaps someone from the Military project could clarify that. As for GNG, his coverage in mainstream media has been almost totally due to this one event.   Will Beback    talk   
 * Correction: Honors commanded the 6th Fleet's command vessel. A fleet would be commanded by a flag officer, not a captain.   Will Beback    talk    11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Honors was not the 6th Fleet commander; that position was and is held by VADM Bruce Clingan. The Newsweek article on which this assertion was based is incorrect. Quickfoot (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I vote keep. If this guy deserves to be deleted, then so does Holly Graf and plenty others.  This makes no sense.  His actions certainly are relevant and timely to the historical events happening in DC re DADT.  LP-mn (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Holly Graf has notability beyond that of Honors: first woman to command a destroyer, later the first woman to command a cruiser. So she's has a claim to notability beyond the incidents that lead to her retirement. Jarkeld .alt (Talk) 16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then riddle me this...why do we have a Wiki for Joseph Hazelwood of Exxon Valdez infamy? That disaster was his only real noteworthy "accomplishment". Sector001 (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are several differences. The Valdez spill affected thousands of people and countless critters, and resulted in the expenditure of billions of dollars. There's an entire article on the Exxon Valdez oil spill. In this case no one was hurt, no chickens were choked, insignificant amounts of money are involved, and the only victim was the subject himself. Hazelwood is more like Rodney King than this subject, who's closer to the Chinese video kid.   Will Beback    talk    11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not a convincing argument. Snotty Wong   squeal 15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. Rillian (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too much of the RUMORED content of the videos has not been established. Said to contain homosexual slurs?  Okay, but not proven....only non-attributed testimonial quotes to that effect.  Wait until the content of the videos is fully established and verified by multiple first-person journalistic review before posting ANY of this. Astrobill  —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC).
 * What rumored content are you referring to? The videos are posted online - nothing rumored about them. Rillian (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * strong keep nominator continues to talk about news coverage...then says article does not meet notability guidelines. WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is an essay, "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." even then this essay states: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources."  no one here argues that  this owens has not been in "multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources."  WP:ONEVENT is probably one of the most abused AFD argument and misunderstood guideline. "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage." In this case, the minor event and the person are the same. Based on WP:ONEVENT guidelines, would the nominator agree to close this AFD and redirect this article to the Owen Honors incident?  The example in the guideline itself states "For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident". This is NOT a "Other stuff exists" essay argument, as this is the EXAMPLE used in the notability guideline.  Surely this case is more important than the Steve Bartman incident (a baseball scandal), because this incident, on the advent of gays being allowed to openly serve, shows the bias of some of those highest in the military and the issues the bias they still have to overcome. Adamtheclown (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As typical of the WP:ONEVENT Deleters, they don't have much of a leg to stand on. Perhaps we should also delete Salvatore Giunta?  Seriously though, I do think that a number of military personnel that reach this level in their career do deserve at least some mention in an article.  It's just a matter of finding proper documentation to reference and some soul that would at least get the ball rollings. --Hourick (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. While I concur with Jarkeld's reasoning above, the momentary attention warrants having the article.  A year from now this question warrants revisiting. -- ke4roh (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PLEASE KEEP. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.187.90 (talk)
 * Delete, as the scandal is more important then the individual. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea. Being relieved as the commander of the world's longest navy ship over a rather dramatic and timely (in the wake of DADT repeal) issue is kind of a big deal; OTOH, I get the sense that he just misses if WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is the guide.  My guess is, when the history of DADT is written, historians will think of this as a significant tie-in, but of course no one has enough distance yet to write a real history.  What may happen here is that the article is deleted for now, but resurfaces in some form as DADT gets more scholarly treatment.  So ... thanks for your work, and be sure to keep a copy in case this gets deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete this falls squarely under one event. The debate taking place is is over the policy, not the page in question. If you don't like the policy then there are other avenues for making your views heard but keeping an article in violation is not the right course. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but move to XO movie night controversy. The notability of the XO movie night was not limited Captain Honors' tenure as XO on the ship. See the 2007 Stars and Stripes article about XO movie night when Cmdr. J.R. Dixon was exec on the Enterprise. Add more about the XO movie night controversy, and less about Honor's bio. Edison (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with above entry; even if you question the necessity of Capt. Honors' bio (and frankly I think a case could be made for keeping it as well), this event was a bona-fide military scandal which does deserve coverage in Wikipedia. For those of you wondering about the actual content of the videos, Huffington Post has it here.  Please note that I am not commenting about my own opinion of what happened here, only that it deserves coverage. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; commanding an aircraft carrier doesn't, on its own, mean he's notable. Being the commander of an aircraft carrier sacked in a blaze of publicity probably means he is. The Land (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Why should this Wiki entry be any different than the Tailhook scandal ? Or for that matter the Exxon Valdez? The Honor entry seems rather well written and researched to me, and certainly is noteworthy. We also have no way of knowing what long ranging effects this will have on the US Navy and their command structure vis a vis his Captain and other higher-ups knowing of the video yet not taking action sooner. Sector001 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct. But this means there may be a need for an article on the videos not on Owen Honors. Thats why we have a tailhook article, but no Cpt. Rick Ludwig article. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:MILPEOPLE is a project essay and really has no relevance for an AfD. It's not part of our notability guidelines. In my view, this article is precluded by BLP1E because Honors wouldn't otherwise be notable. If the event is demonstrated to have an enduring effect, perhaps an article on the "event" can be created at a later time but there is no evidence of that right now. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep He was Captain of the largest warship in the world and his actions have created an international stir. People will be looking up this story for years to come.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep On one hand, it would seem to me that the commanding officer of a major ship of the fleet is notable enough for an article. Would like to see more biographical details, though. Blueboy96 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He is the recipient of the Legion of Merit. http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/enterprise/Documents/CaptHonors.pdf That alone makes him notable. Mike 22:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — User:mfaul123 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:MILPEOPLE, while an essay, only mentions the MOH and the DSF, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross. WP:ANYBIO mentions: "well known or significant award or honor". The Legion of Merit doesn't seem to fall into that category. Jarkeld (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The award is sixth in the order of precedence ... pretty high, I think. And like I said earlier, even without that he was the commander of a major ship of the fleet.Blueboy96 23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sixth is well below second, the highest-ranking honor that brings notability, and then only if given repeatedly. Many officers command capital ships during times of relative peace and have uneventful tours of duty. It doesn't make them notable. Merely commanding a ship, however large, does not convey notability. That's not a judgment on the quality of the men or women, it's just saying that it is a routine activity. WP does not automatically add articles for mayors of small cities either.    Will Beback    talk    11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A Legion of Merit or two is typical for a senior officer, staff or command. There is no inherent notability there for an O-6.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Story and the man are noteworthy.Tlatseg (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * strong Keep I think this is an important topic. I saw one of the videos and they were just comical, not aggressive or humiliating. This means that this guy was dumped just because he had a sense of humor and was willing to share it in his work place. Now this is important from a sociological point of view, it shows our values, what is consider allowed and forbidden. While a part of society is going towards openness and criticism (The Simpsons, American's Dad, etc), this is strongly forbidden in specific social contexts. It also has implications for the recruits, for instance I know I would want to go to the army if I knew I would find a place where one could have friends and good humor. Firing this guy sends an important message to all those recruits out there: if you're in the navy, laughing or criticizing in not allowed! So keep this here. It is a very important sign of our way of seeing the world and where we're going to. For all of this to make sense it is important to know that the person in question was competent and had an impeccable record, so this entry is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.138.128 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems rather more like an WP:ILIKEIT comment than an actual rationale.  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to WP:MILPEOPLE, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." The nine "in particular" categories that follow are simply demonstrations of how an individual will "almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify." It does not say that the individual must fall into at least one of those categories; merely that falling into at least one "almost always" indicates that they have "significant coverage". The standard appears to be "significant coverage", and Capt. Honors certainly meets that standard. If the argument is that the event is more important than the person, the article could easily be re-edited and re-named to fit that criteria. Why delete the article and then have to start all over again? Whether treated as an individual or as an event, the subject of the article is notable. MishaPan (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete classic WP:1E. 203.97.106.191 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, after consideration. I recognize that WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS is a factor here, and certainly a lot of the other keep votes are either unaware of or blatantly ignoring these policies (argh guys do better!), but a decent amount of coverage discusses how this incident fits into a "changing Navy culture" as gay people will soon be able to serve openly, new fields open to women, etc. (This article also discusses the incident in the context of other military scandals.) I feel that we can make a reasonably bet that this will be referred to for a while, particularly as DADT repeal is implemented. However, Honors's life story is unnecessary; perhaps it could be stripped out and the article renamed to "Owen Honors incident" or something? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge whatever is relevant with the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) entry. Obviously not notable for anything beyond this incident. JCO312 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy is now (through youtube :)) way more popular than some president. I desperately needed information about him. Thanks to Wikipedia now I know a lot about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.36.112 (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If Honors is not notable, then neither are all the American Idol contestants and Survivor contestants. Logophile (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The Honor story is within the context of larger events Granite07 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep He was the commanding officer of a capital ship, that makes him noteworthy even without the incident.XavierGreen (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOTNEWS refers to "routine news coverage" of a person or event, but the reports involved here most decidedly do not fall under that description. WP:BLP1E is a guideline that does give wiggle room for articles like these in that Honors is not a low-profile individual; he was the captain of one of the most well-known ships in the world and is involved in an incident that has received international coverage. Given the amount of detail that is available regarding his military career prior to the scandal and the significance of his role in the scandal, I think Wikipedia would best be served by keeping this article in his name rather than redirect to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) or some other name. I have no objection for creating an article about the scandal if the focus of reports begins to involve other officers under his command. Location (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - as noted, this isn't really a WP:BLP1E issue; while there is a 'one event' that pushes him over the edge of notability, being an aircraft-carrier captain is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the carrier in question is Enterprise. Some things are more than the sum of their parts; while none of his various notable things done may be notable enough in and of themselves, when combined, I believe he's worthy of an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:ONEEVENT. The incident which led to his sacking could, and should, be covered in the article on the ship. A lot of the above keep votes appear to be variants of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT (in that the commander of a large warship is deemed notable in isolation of any assessment of available sources) and aren't based on any policy. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But if commanding the Enterprise isn't notable, where does that leave Jean-Luc Picard? ;) Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The deletionists seem to be pushing things too far here - such that it's become a knee-jerk reaction to try and delete *anything* that's in the news. If you look at what BLP1E actually says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (My emphasis)  But he hasn't only been covered in the context of this incident.  The article already cites coverage from before the video incident made the news.  Probably a lot more could be dug up too.  I'm sure there was coverage when he took command of the Enterprise.  Also, he wasn't a "low-profile individual" even before the scandal broke.  He was the commander of one of the most famous ships in the world - with a crew of over five thousand - more than a lot of towns.  BLP1E was designed so that obscure people who happened to have a brief brush with fame wouldn't have articles written about them that would then have to be closely monitored (so as not to violate BLP standards) long after they faded back into obscurity.  But that clearly is not the case here.  We have an already noteworthy person who become more notorious as a result of this incident.  -Helvetica (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The circumstances of Captain Honors's firing have made international headlines. He's now a highly notable U.S. Navy officer. -- Evans1982 (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - He will be world famous--and/or infamous--for a long time. Also, setting aside this one CO's appearances in the news, I'm surprised there isn't a Wikipedia article about every commanding officer of the Enterprise.  The office alone makes individual articles entirely worthy. -- AmbassadorShras (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What independent, in-depth sources exist to support articles on commanders of this ship? (which is but one of the 12 aircraft carriers the US Navy currently operates). Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - passing notability only due to single event per WP:BLP1E and fails the notability guidelines in WP:MILMOS/N. The details surrounding his sacking could be included in the article on the USS Enterprise but that is it. Also I question whether a lot of the sources used in the article are reliable as well. Anotherclown (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This person is notable.   --rogerd (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete & Merge - CAPT Honors fails WP:MILPEOPLE and only acheives WP:N per one event, therefore I agree with previously made arguments that relevant information should be placed in the article regarding his command; See WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps we should also look at CAPT Holly Graf --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete notable for only one event, per WP:BLP1E. Also fails criteria laid out by WP:SOLDIER. Hekerui (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: classis lack of lasting notability per WP:NOTNEWS, as well as WP:BLP1E and WP:MILPEOPLE. I might be willing to consider Edison's proposal to move and convert to an article about the event as well, if consensus leans toward keeping; but I think it's merely worth a few sentances on the Enterprise article, under the "history" section.
 * Also have to ask: what the heck does this guy have to do with DADT? The videos made were long before the repeal of DADT got traction, and the relief seems to stem from the unprofessional nature of the horsing around, rather than anything about homosexuality (media speculation and hyperbole to the contrary).  bahamut0013  words deeds 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Every Medal of Honor-winner gets his own article, no matter how insignificant his life was beyond winning that one medal (don't flip out, people, you know how I mean that...) That guy is certainly more significant than many other military officers whose significance is largely undisputed. -- Imladros (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith for a moment and ask if you simply misread the article? Owen Honors is not an MoH recipient. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The author of that post understands Honors is not a MoH recipient; if Honors was a MoH recipient then he would automatically have a Wikipedia article and we would not all be here talking about if Honors deserve an article. Granite07 (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Without the current video mess, he does not pass either the WP:GNG or the WP:SOLDIER fallback. With the mess, we're just at a simple WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E scenario.  The calls to keep are largely without merit, resting on WP:OTHERSTUFF name-drops, "keep its in the news!", and such.  An IP editor brings up WP:SOLDIER criteria #6, but that specifically notes "in combat". Tarc (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER is nothing more than guff, actually. It's a project essay that even the project refused to try to promomte as a guideline. I hope the closing admin recognises that. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it doesn't alter the argument. Those specialized, sub-guides are there to provide cover for those that would otherwise miss the GNG; like how we have articles for people who played 1 game of baseball in 1899 even though no reliable source mentions them, because they qualify via WP:ATHLETE. Honors passes neither the general nor the specific, as unused/unwanted as it may be. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mkativerata's point does alter the argument. The difference between WP:ATHLETE and WP:SOLDIER is that one is a specialized sub-guideline that has the support of community consensus whereas the other is only an essay that does not have the same support. The distinction of having community consensus or not is an important one. The fact that SOLDIER was not promoted to guideline-status suggests that editors find it to be flawed in some manner. Location (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not alter it one bit, and you are spectacularly missing the point. If WP:SOLDIER never existed then we would still be left with what is IMO a failure of the general notability guidelines.  If the essay were better-received by the community then it could possibly serve as an extra safety net to sustain otherwise GNG-failures like Owen Honors, jut as Athlete sustains athletic GNG-failures or WP:PORNBIO props up T&A tartlets who would otherwise be non-article worthy.  If it is largely rejected, fine, then take it out of the conversation.  But that doesn't boost his notability otherwise one bit. Tarc (talk)
 * And you are spectacularly missing my point, Pot. You attempted to justify WP:SOLDIER's relationship to WP:GNG as a "fallback" when, as an essay, it has no relationship to it as such. It alters the argument in that many editors are using it to recommend "delete" when it actually has no weight as an official guideline. Incidentally, the guy who initially pointed this out to you is on your side of the !vote. Location (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's avoid name-calling. Location, you're harping on the wrong point. Whether MILPEOPLE or not is a valid notability guide is irrelevant, because it's not the only cited argument for keeping or deleting. Whether MILPEOPLE is met or not is irrelevant because GNG, BIO, and BLP1E aren't met either, and even if MILPEOPLE was a guideline, it couldn't override those other three considerations. And in any case, there are people using MILPEOPLE as a keep justification anyway, so your argument about having no official weight works against you in invalidating thier keep !votes.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is "harping" on which point, which point is irrelevant, and who is escalating incivility in a brash manner here is a matter of POV. Given how commonly the essay is being used on both sides of the aisle by new and experienced editors, I do not think it is irrelevant to support the point that it carries no, or at least shouldn't carry any, official weight. What is clear to me is that editors and closing admins do give at least some weight to secondary notability guidelines (or what they perceive to be a SNG, in this case). If this were not the case, there would be little need for us to post more than "fails GNG" or "passes GNG". Although our assessment differs, I think we are in agreement that the subject's notability should be determined by GNG, BIO, and BLP1E. Location (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Location, no editor in this AfD cites failing WP:MILPEOPLE as the sole reason to delete the article. At the time of the original post I assumed that it was a fallback/failsafe/2nd tier, whatever damned term you want to use, to GNG.  Just as pornbio and athlete are.  That assumptino is now wrong, that is fine.  Honors still IMO fails to qualify for an article for other reasons, and others who have weighed in to delete have cited 1E and the GNG such as well.  The now-obviously irrelvance of MILPEOPLE does not impact any deletion call in this AfD.  Clear? Tarc (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.192.213 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 85.1.192.213 has made no other post ever. I forget the template that automatically says that.   D r e a m Focus  23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean spa??  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW, not much I expect, in 2002 he was commander of VFA-211 on the USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, according to Stage, Jeff. "Cicero High, Naval Academy Grad Flies Into Combat Zone: Owen P. Honors is Commander of an F-14 Tomcat Squadron." Syracuse Post-Standard March 21, 2002. on LEXIS NEXIS. It's got additional info about his education, awards, family and classmates. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ample news coverage of the guy. This is a notable event, since how often, if ever, has this sort of thing happened before?  The captain of an aircraft carrier gets fired for offensive videos shown to the crew.   D r e a m Focus  22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has significant coverage in reputable third party sources. Being an aircraft carrier commander may not be notable. However, being the cause of a major scandal on the largest aircraft carrier in the world would be notable. This event has received substantial coverage for the media. He received little coverage before, but still did receive some. He qualifies under WP:BLP1E. Alpha Quadrant    talk    00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article does meet requirement for WP:MILPEOPLE line 6 by reason was command of capital ship. Furthermore the recent events will make defenitive a change in military guideline concerning media and off duty time aboard ships and on bases around the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.216.205.10 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * #6 specifies that commanding a capital ship during combat confers notability. I don't see evidence that the ship was under fire during this officer's command. Does anyone know for sure?   Will Beback    talk    01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have been told, it seems that WP:MILPEOPLE is a largely rejected/ignored essay, so whether this person passes or fails it is pretty much moot. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if it weren't being rejected, he would fail MILPEOPLE anyway.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep At last count there are currently over 3090 articles discussing this man and the related story. This will be discussed continually in relation to DADT, commanding officers, etc for some time to come. --Bouspret (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. BLP1E clearly provides for inclusion of articles "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial[...] Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Clearly the coverage of Capt. Honors in the news is highly persistent, and will likely be so for quite some time. -- RoninBK T C 05:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's gotten over 30 thousand hits in its first few days of existence! This is what people come to Wikipedia to see.  To seek out information that interest them.   D r e a m Focus  07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially a "google hit" argument, which is discounted out of hand. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Over 13,000 people a day are turning to Wikipedia for this article. I would not dismiss that out of hand as a "Google hits: big number" argument as you do. Likely many of the "Keep" arguments are coming from these readers of the article. When a few months have gone by, only the Wiki regulars will participate if there is a second AFD. Edison (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it always easier to delete something with fewer people around to notice.  D r e a m Focus  05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What you would do regarding using google hits as a plea for notability is pretty irrelevant, as that line of argument is invalid. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What does this haev to do with Google? You click history for the article, then click page views.   D r e a m Focus  23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP Forgive my poor editing skills :) Not only does the ever-increasing coverage make Captain Honors noteworthy, but the level of support shown by former shipmates has been almost unwaveringly positive. That, along with the growing questioning of the timing of this punishment, years after the videos were made and addressed by superiors but immediately after they were made public in the same news cycle as DADT, and considering that the admirals who presided over the original complaint judged it not worthy of official sanction at the time and later gave him command, is adding to the growing perception that this is entirely political in nature (ya think?). When you combine this event with the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for similarly indiscreet/embarrassing speech it connects into the whole cultural phenomenon of political correctness and its pervasiveness even in places it might arguably not belong like the military during war ( Honors really should be linked to ), which then connects into the Ground Zero Mosque, Islam and the whole discussion of imbalance when again, it comes to political correctness and tolerance... this all makes the Captain more than just a one-trick-pony, even if he is one tiny gear in a very big clock. And, in the larger sense of Wikipedia as a whole, I came here looking for info on Captain Honors. I wanted his career info to cite for a comment on another site, and I automatically Googled "owen honors wiki" in order to get his Wikipedia page as the first hit. I always add "wiki" to my search terms to get here, for the (mostly) reliably comprehensive compilation of information and the links to outside sources. Isn't that what we want, what the ideal is, for Wikipedia to get as close as it can to being the mythical Storehouse Of All Human Knowledge, to be the go-to guy for information? Our policies should default to a position of inclusion of articles by definition. If the noteworthiness policy disqualifies Captain Honors but not Puck from The Real World, then that policy needs some tweaking. Thanks! Cowcharge (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Move and rename - Per WP:EVENT. The scandal is notable, not the person involved.  That is what the article should be about. Blueboar (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has become a dumping ground for WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP violations and has been reported at ORN . Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the spirit of WP:SOLDIER. An important command involved in an important event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER is apparently a largely discarded essay.  Do you have an opinion as to whether this person meets the WP:GNG ? Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I get annoyed and discouraged people wanting to delete pages. If thousands of people want to read some basic encyclopedic information about a person, why not have a short article.

I wanted to read about Owen Honors, a navy commander who was in the news for controversial comedic videos. His page also is up for deletion.

I certainly see no harm in including people of minor note or short lived fame in the wiki. As far as I can tell it's a boon to human knowledge.

Imagine someone doing a report on gays in the military 20 years from now. Wouldn't it be nice if they could find the contemporaneous issues like Honors? Or Willams and the power of memes in the early internet?

Let's mellow wiki editors. Work instead on expanding and improving.

Overzealous deletion might keep people from contributing, and wiki already suffers with problems of elitism. (I am certainly not saying let poor submitters or poor articles go though, only emphasis should be on improvements not deletion.)

Lastly, if you are self righteous about any deletion, you are probably not the one who should be instigating or arguing for it. You are too personally involved. I would extend that to people who think of themselves as deleters of wiki. I recon any deleter should spend five time writing or improving articles as they do deleting. (If an article really ought not to be included, someone will come along and take care of it later.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)  — 66.93.220.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Your entry, once we get past the slander and personal attacks against other editors, can be best summed up as a delving into WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:NOHARM, which are not a valid reason to retain an article. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whereas you can muster persuasive arguments like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:Not notable. :) Hawkeye7 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, for the personal attack bit. The article is useful in an encyclopedic way. I fundamentally disagree with this and a few other deletions. There must be some basic difference either in my use of encyclopedias or in how the deleters see wiki. I had the idea that wiki "content-adders/revisers"(of which I am not) followed guidelines closer to my own intuitions. I found that some article deletions that I considered erroneous (as in I did a search for information only to find the relevant article had once existed) were carried out by only a few folk. This, along with work in article creation and ease of deletion (and learning curve for wiki proficiency), leads to the rather strong claim that if you are primarily "A Deleter!" I probably disagree with you. My apologies for both the unwikiness the earlier and now this post. Wrong time, wrong place. Ya'll got to be my first. I am now reading up all this cool WP stuff which should help me when I freak next time; I still only want to be a reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.220.9 (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Move to XO movie night per WP:BLP1E; relevant details about Honors can be covered there. RJaguar3 &#124;  u  &#124;  t  19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Question Wasn't he the captain of an aircraft carrier during wartime? Wasn't that aircraft carrier used in any military activities for the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq?  Also, do any of his awards/medals make him notable?   D r e a m Focus  03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment at the risk of being accused of using WP:OSE, is this guy less notable than Ted Williams (announcer)?  (see Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer)) --rogerd (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "I'd say Williams isn't notable in any enduring sense, based on what's happened in the last few days. If he gets a career then he'd probably become notable. However, since I refer to Page Views below I'll point out that Williams's article has received three times as many views as this article in only half the time.   Will Beback    talk    08:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest anyone who thinks that this is a subject with enduring notability should look at the article's Page Views. They peaked two days ago at 13.6 and the total for the December 7 was just 1.8k. I expect it will continue to drop, with spikes for his departure from the Navy and the discipline of superior officers, if any. Should the subject become more notable in the future there's no reason why the article couldn't be recreated.   Will Beback    talk    08:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the international attention (all sourced and in the article) regarding the naval investigation currently, he has been mentioned in the LA Daily News (previous jet crash) and quoted by Newsweek for an article about Russia being unhappy with an American humanitarian action in Georgia. I am neither a fan nor detractor of the subject, I simply wanted to know more about him. How many separate incidents of sourced media does he require to be notable? --71.110.65.2 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not saying that page views are an acceptable measure of notability, or that page views constitute a good argument for or against deletion. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The page views have dropped by half again in the last 24 hours. No, page views do not have anything to do with enduring notability - I'm just rebutting those who've said it does.   Will Beback    talk   


 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. No one outside of the Navy ever heard of him before he made his video and no one will remember him a year from now. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I think this is probably a case of WP:BLP1E, but it's a borderline case, as he did have a fairly distinguished career before the recent video controversy. However, I accept the argument that his military career wouldn't be enough to make him notable by itself; as significant a post as captain of an aircraft carrier is, we don't have articles on the rest of them unless they went on to a higher post beyond that. If we wouldn't have had an article on him before, we shouldn't have an article on him due to one event, therefore delete. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your argument here strikes me as rather WP:OSE, similar to the example they give: "* Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Just because there aren't yet articles about some other aircraft carrier captains doesn't mean that there shouldn't be - as long as there are enough reliable sources to document their career - it just means they haven't been written yet. -Helvetica (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong, there is an article on Y, and even a why, if you wanna get picky about it.

He meets the criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE, and this has been discussed long enough. Can someone hurry up and make their mind up already?
 * Keep - enough coverage to qualify WP:MILPEOPLE. KVIKountry (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#EEEEFE;color=#648113">Snotty Wong   squeal 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:BLP1E. If this guy didn't make the controversial videos, no one would be clamoring to write an article on him.  <span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#EEEEFE;color=#648113">Snotty Wong   squeal 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Other people have said it well enough, and just the amount of interest in this page (and the obvious likelyhood of re-creation) makes it a definite keep. LarsHolmberg (talk) 10:37, 11 January 2011 (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.