Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald A. Gregory


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ronald A. Gregory

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject, who is a living person - they only refer to him in passing in his role as a judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of him as either a person or in his official role. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP and being a Colonel also fails WP:SOLDIER  D Big X ray   05:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agreed per nom. WP:SOLDIER is fairly clear on this. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 16:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, although the subject is part of a possibly notable judicial body, the subject is primarily a JAG Officer and thus WP:SOLDIER is relevant. The subject does not pass SOLDIER at this time. As for WP:GNG there isn't significant coverage of the subject himself to warrant passage of GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IAR Keep- WP:Soldier is only relevant in that its suggestions for notability have not been met, and no one here has even suggested they have. Judges fall under WP:Politician, and national level appellate judges have by common outcomes been determined to pass, whether associated with the military or not. The only area the article fails, and if nothing is available offline will continue to fail, is in-depth coverage. Wikipedia still recognizes the position. Dru of Id (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dru of Id/WP:POLITICIAN #1, or as an alternate Redirect to United States Court of Military Commission Review. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Expand: In my view, DGG's point at the WP:DRV listed below makes a salient point.  I do believe, no matter what the letter of WP:POLITICIAN says, that as a "last appellate court", e.g., the SCOTUS of this particular system of law, that the representatives are inherently notable.  This is consistent with WP:POLITCIAN's wording--it has a national or international scope, depending on your view.  While it appears that my view is unlikely to prevail here, I think it's a mistake, these folks are, in a very clear way, just as notable as Miss Tuvalu 1935. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment the consensus on similar AFDs at Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge) and Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Bechtold_%282nd_nomination%29 was delete.-- D Big X ray  15:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I initiated a deletion review of these two closures. Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. There's no evidence that this article on a living person meets the standards set by WP:BIO and WP:BLP Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the above have put it very well why. (And note that the DRV appears to be heading torwards endorsement). - The Bushranger One ping only 21:01, 10 July 2012 (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.