Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Carney Jr.


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert B. Carney Jr.
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG even with added references. An obituary does not classify as SIGCOV, even when combined with the article about his engagement. "U.S. Marines in Vietnam" seemed a reliable source, however, Carney is mentioned only once in passing in the entire book on page 55. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep another WP:REVENGE nomination by nom after failing with Articles for deletion/George Jacobson and Articles for deletion/John B. Selby. Easy pass on WP:BASIC including obituary in the Washington Post. Mztourist (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true, John B. Selby had fewer references than this article when AfDd. If we are speaking of REVENGE I could mention how you have nominated the same article multiple times (Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination)) because you didn't get the result you wanted, on top of multiple other articles that were all referenced better than this article. You have become hostile, rude, and are hypocritical when it comes to notability and sources. An obituary can not by itself pass WP:Basic, even if it is in The Washington Post. A book that contains the persons name in passing is not SIGCOV. This article as it stands right now does not pass WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained in the nomination for Edens that it was incorrectly Kept based on a misunderstanding of the now-deprecated SOLDIER. Nothing hostile or rude in my dealings with your REVENGE and harassment on my User Page. Mztourist (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't think your comments were rude or hostile, I would recommend for you to read over them again. I make a legit AfD and I am accused of REVENGE, are you immune from AfDs? I would urge you to reflect your criticism equally on your own articles as you do of others. You seem so offended when your articles are scrutinised, but you can't see why it was AfDd? There isn't any independent SIGCOV. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I know perfectly well what I wrote, this is clearly another REVENGE nomination from you, just like the two previous ones. I'm perfectly fine with having my pages scrutinised, because I don't create pages about non-notable topics. Mztourist (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say it again, a single obituary is not SIGCOV, that is why we are here. I find it interesting how you apply the WP standards to yourself vs others. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. All this unpleasantness is a reminder that things were calmer when generals and high schools were automatically notable. Automatic notability means that some borderline articles will be kept, but it also means that AfD participants will have more time to create new articles. As for the validity of obituaries as references, I would say that paid death announcements don't count (although they may be helpful for biographical details), obituaries written by a newsaper's staff are reliable sources, and that non-bylined obituaries are potentially okay, depending on what is known about the newspaper and its criteria for running obituaries. In the case of the Washington Post, I think it is selective about its obituaries, and chose to run one about Carney because he was notable by the Post's standards. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The unpleasantness is a result of REVENGE AfDing. SOLDIER was deprecated by consensus and still some Users think it gave generals an automatic pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Including you apparently, did you see the same article I did when it was AfDd? You have a habit of not responding to anything that doesn't fit your narrative. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a habit of not continuing with pointless discussions with someone who can't tell whether or not a topic is notable.Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are going to make an argument then make an argument, but your statement above is simply a personal attack and I am frankly sick of it. The matter of fact is this article was extremely poorly and by your own standards, which I can give you several examples, this article would have never passed WP:GNG if anyone else had authored it. Jamesallain85 (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to you. Your comment "this article would have never passed WP:GNG if anyone else had authored it" makes no sense. Anyone can create a page. If anyone else thinks it doesn't pass GNG then they can PROD or AFD it. Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument was that if any other person had written the article you would have AfDd it in a second. Go look at your current AfDs, they were all referenced better than this article. You just want to argue and argue that nothing is notable enough, nothing is significant enough, nothing is reliable enough, unless you authored it. Then a single obituary is enough by itself to pass everything by itself, and everyone that doesn't agree with you are ridicules, just a waste of your time, and beneath you. You belittle and bully other editors for not agreeing with your opinion despite you being obviously wrong and are just "going down with your ship," fighting to the bitter end. WP:ASSHOLE Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ASSHOLE yourself, this page is being kept, better luck next time. Mztourist (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't get it, my goal isn't to delete this page. It was to draw attention to a poorly sourced page. The only person that gets enjoyment of deleting pages and reverting around here is you. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was always clear that this was nothing but REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, general officers should be considered notable. It would save a lot of time and unnecessary discussion. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why, apart from REVENGE, did you nominate this page? Mztourist (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because, as you demonstrated, they don't have automatic notability, and it had a single obit as a source for the entire page. However, I wouldn't be against making that policy. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The self-contradiction of your comments above doesn't bother you then? Mztourist (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the contradiction. I supported WP:Soldier's existence. You fought to have it eliminated, so now it's gone. I think General officers should be considered notable, but I cannot change WP policy. This is a Brigadier general without any notable awards, and at the time the article was AfDd, it had a single obituary as a source. This discussion is the result, what is the contradiction? Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG, as do most general officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necro and Mzt. (And I don't truck with no "revenge noms".) -  wolf  20:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Before you throw around accusations of revenge, maybe you should look at the article as it was when nominated. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You were accused, by someone else, of posting a revenge nom. I said I don't truck with, or agree the "revenge noms", (in quotes.) So surely you get it now. Don't be accusing people of accusing you... -  wolf  02:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Has anybody voting on this AfD actually looked at the sources? The Leatherneck is not an independent source, it is published by the US Marine Corps, The New York Times article is a primary source, the Washington Post article is an obituary, the Smith book is a trivial mention, and the Hall of Valor would also be considered a primary source. The standard we are applying other places doesn't seem to be applied here currently. Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And how is that different from say, Benjamin H. Adams? FYI Leatherneck is not published by the US Marine Corps, it is published by the Marine Corps Association Mztourist (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Clear argument of WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, what is the difference, you are right, absolutely nothing. That is also kind of the point, because if this article passes notability, so should Benjamin H. Adams, and also many of the articles you have nominated for AfD. My entire issue is there is no clear consensus on application of notability. I wish you applied the notability guidelines on other articles just as you have here. I would be happy to do the same. However if this article doesn't pass then you are right Benjamin H. Adams should also be nominated for AfD. What doesn't make sense is that this article would pass and Benjamin H. Adams wouldn't, which how things have been applied lately wouldn't surprise me. Also, it would be easy to argue that the Marine Corps Association also isn't independent, but it is defiantly a secondary source and should be included as a resource. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not WP:OTHERSTUFF, you were saying that !voters hadn't looked at the sources and then critiqued them. I was simply pointing out that the sources are effectively the same as Benjamin H. Adams which you created, a couple of obituaries, some newspaper stories and some primary sources, you obviously think they're good enough for Adams so why are they not good enough for Carney? Applying your reasoning both Carney and Adams should be deleted. I have not nominated Adams for deletion, nor would I because the combination of sources satisfies BASIC, however a number of the other pages you have created don't. Its time for you to WP:DTS, your complaint at ANI has gone nowhere and the participants in that discussion have pointed out that its unclear what you are trying to acheive. Mztourist (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment the Battle of Iwo Jima is well-known subject, the taking of Mount Suribachi particularly, and covered by a number of books. I would expect material on his contribution, if it's recorded anywhere, would be in those independent sources. Confirming that would be a positive step. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I finally found one after a lot of searching and have added it to the article. My previous concerns are now satisfied as far as I am concerned it meets WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:09, 22 September 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.