Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sau Sovanney


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Sau Sovanney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fluff piece on a non-notable individual. The subject of the biography does not pass the muster at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources used on the article are from sites that cannot be considered as reliable sources due to the quality of reporting or their lack of independence from the subject of the article and the government. Most of the articles referenced are written in the form of press releases, sourced from Cambodian government departments and agencies. Much of the content is original research. — Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  20:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I would like to see better sources. Also, since this is a modern general, how important is he within that country's military? If he is one of a mass of generals who haven't found distinction, then my keep becomes delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqke (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. We have long since decided that all generals are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep . As a general, clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. Government sources are considered to be reliable sources to establish the rank and career of a government employee. It is a common misconception that they are not. The quality of the article is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for expressing your opinion on the subject, Necrosthesp. I would like to propose that you reconsider your !vote based on the following facts: (1) Cambodia has one of the most bloated and top-heavy militaries in the world. For a relatively small country of 16m+ population, the armed forces have over 2,000 generals; see also, report in the Phnom Penh Post &mdash; . Phnom Penh Post notes in the same article: “This is common,” said one staffer, who has spent almost a decade within the ministry. “A general of two stars may take off his stars and become a lieutenant colonel so they can negotiate with their counterpart.” Put simply, he said, there are two contexts: Cambodia and the world. Another article in Post quotes an unnamed diplomat &mdash; : However, a member of the diplomatic community with in-depth knowledge of Cambodia’s armed forces yesterday dismissed the idea that those promoted had met any stringent requirements. “The ranks are meaningless,” they said. “In most cases, they are promoted to the next rank without any increase in responsibility or function . . . it’s become almost an expectation that you should be promoted as a reward for loyalty.” See also more articles discussing this issue &mdash;, , ; (2) With regard to criteria #2 on WP:SOLDIER, i.e. Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents &mdash; it appears to me, going by the definition provided in General officer, that the reference contained in the "essay" is to generals that are "four star" rank and above. The subject's rank, on the other hand, is that of a "three-star" Lieutenant General, therefore the subject does not meet the criteria listed under WP:SOLDIER; (3) Furthermore, WP:SOLDIER notes: Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. &mdash; and accordingly, it is evident from the available sources that there is no significant coverage received by this individual, as they are largely included as a participant in some government-related ceremony or ritual, or having being quoted on a matter relavant to such ritual. This, coupled with the fact that the sources themselves cannot be considered reliable in any meaningful sense (these are not government websites, but nominally private media outlets with strong links to ruling party politicians and senior government officials), given their notorious lack of independence and the generally low quality of reporting, the conditions set in WP:SOLDIER are decidedly not met; and (4) most importantly, WP:SOLDIER is neither official policy nor guideline for establishing notability on Wikipedia (it is merely an "essay"), in that it only states conditions under which notability may be presumed in case of certain individuals, however that is simply general guidance that cannot purport to supersede conditions provided under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {c}  13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally one-star generals (or even brigadiers when they aren't (force dependent) considered generals) are considered notable per WP:SOLDIER - however the assertion in The Phnom Penh Post is quite convincing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite. I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that WP:SOLDIER only applies to four-star generals! It may only be an essay, but it is generally taken as the standard for military bios on Wikipedia. However, given what you say about the ludicrous number of generals in Cambodia, I'm going to change my opinion to neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per The Phnom Penh Post there are more than 2,000 generals in 125,000 strong Royal Cambodian Armed Forces. That's one general per 62 active duty soldiers (or one per 162 soldiers if we include the reserves). Thus a general in the RCAF is equivalent to a company commander (Captain - OF-2) in most other forces. I have no idea how we extrapolate a 3-star RCAF general (+2 from OF-2 to OF-4? lt. Col) - but it still seems out of SOLDIER(2)'s intended reach). In my WP:BEFOREing for this individual I was barely able to confirm the rank. They do not seem to pass WP:GNG, and regardless of the particularities of SOLDIER (which seem inapplicable given RCAF's general inflation) - SOLDIER is only a presumption of GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, Per Icewhiz (talk)-MA Javadi (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2019 (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.