Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott L Efflandt


 * 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   speedy delete. Speedy deleted as per only author request. Davewild (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott L Efflandt

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This person does not seem to meet WP:SOLDIER, and I don't see any other notability. A couple newspaper articles doesn't seem to make this person significant. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: lack of notability per WP:MILPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Seems like a fairly typical Army officer, no notable awards, commands, or participation in significant events; and the article is written more like a WP:RESUME than a biography.  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fairly typical brigade commander. We can't list every brigade commander in history. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Colonels are not inherently notable. Another promotion and he will start to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with the above comments. Colonel Efflandt's career is no more notable than any other officer of the same rank. Clearly a capable officer with years of faithful service to his nation but not notable in a Wikipedia sense. The awards are commendable and worthy of respect, of course, but not notable per WP:MILPEOPLE. Nor does it appear like the colonel was significantly involved in any notable historical events. More importantly, however, is the fact that the article is a WP:BLP issue and thus without any sources should be deleted IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand the policy and your comments. We agree that the page may be deleted and will not appeal any further. Thank you.1BCTIRONHORSE (talk) 14:42, 13 July 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.