Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon D. Allen (OARDEC)


 * 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. G7: author request HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharon D. Allen (OARDEC)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Bio. IQinn (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - appears to have only passing notability due to a single event per WP:BLP1E and lacks 'significant independent coverage' in reliable sources to establish lasting notability per WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Anotherclown. Doesn't seem to have any notability as a military officer, and the judicial aspect doesn't pass par IMO (unlike, say, Stephen Abraham, whose Supreme Court testimony was significant, as opposed to presiding over the CSRT). The whole series of Combatant Status Review Tribunal articles could use some cleanup and merging, BTW.  bahamut0013  words deeds 13:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — bahamut0013  words deeds  14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions.  — bahamut0013  words deeds  14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Anotherclown Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, fails - fails WP:GNG, WP:Bio and WP:N.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: doesn't seem to meet the requirements for "significant coverage" in independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I applied db-author tag, another contributor removed it, claiming (1) other contributors had edited the talk page; (2) other contributors had edited the article; (3) there was an active afd. I re-applied the db-author.
 * I think the presence of a talk page is irrelevant.
 * I believe when an articles has had multiple contributors, but only the original contributor contributed intellectual content, and subsequent edits are corrections to spelling, grammar or punctuation, or the addition or creation of categories, wikitags, or other meta-information, a db-author is still appropriate. In this particular case I do not believe subsequent edits passed de minimus.
 * I believe a db-author supercedes an afd. Geo Swan (talk) 18:40, 6 December 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.