Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Pangelinan


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Susan Pangelinan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't believe that being named one of the most impressive women is enough to make her notable Gbawden (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mid-ranking officer with a couple of minor "awards". No real notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails draft guideline MILPEOPLE. Highest rank lieutenant colonel. No combat command or significant other achievement. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. She doesn't have to meet MILPEOPLE, she meets GNG. The article isn't about her military service, it is about her service to citizens in an environmental crisis and her on-going support of her fellow soldiers. STEM is not a minor award it is an international program and the award she received is a national award. Secondly, she was called to the "Little Hoover Commission" as an expert witness. Again, notable. SusunW (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a minor award. And being an expert witness doesn't equal automatic notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree with your assessment. She holds a doctorate in Health Administration. Her expertise is in military mental health. She was called as an expert in that capacity to testify regarding veteran suicide rates, from what I am reading. Rather than tossing the article without evaluating it, maybe you should evaluate some of the links? I have a heavy schedule for the next few days, but will help with improving the article in the next few days. SusunW (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that having a doctorate and/or being consulted on the subject of that doctorate = notability? Er, no. She's an expert and she's given expert testimony, just like many other experts. That by itself does not make any of them notable, as it's what experts do. Does she hold a significant post? No. Does she hold general officer rank? No. Has she received a significant national or international award? No. Does she have a large corpus of significant published work? No. Is she a familiar face on national media? No. Sorry, but she's just not notable enough for an article yet. Maybe in the future, but not now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say that. There is nothing in Wiki criteria that requires anything that you have cited. For GNG she does not have to "be a familiar face on national media", nor does she have to have a "large corpus of significant published work". GNG requires that she have "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" which is not fleeting. Almost all of the articles about her are from the military, I believe that qualifies as RS. She has been called "a role model" by the National Guard in 2009 and one of the "most impressive women serving in the military Business Insider in 2013. Both RS, and show not fleeting. Her area of expertise, military suicide and mental health, is significant and of concern to the military. She is co-chair of the CA governor's Suicide Prevention and Intervention Group CA gov as well as having been called as an expert witness . And there are multiple articles that give significant coverage to her involvement here, . Please provide documentation for your claim that the STEM Role model award is a minor award. Sources I am reviewing do not confirm that it is a minor award. award description SusunW (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just giving examples of proof that she might be notable. But routine coverage (which is what everything you've cited is) and receipt of what is essentially a pat-on-the-back commendation certificate are not evidence of notability. Pretty much any military officer and/or expert of her rank and qualifications will have such coverage and awards. Note that she has been given precisely zero actual official national-level honours or decorations which might suggest a level of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I point out to you that you have provided zero documentation that STEM is an unimportant national award. It is not per se a military award, though in this case it was given by the military, but is given in multiple disciplines. I have provided you with documentation to confirm it is a national award and is for exemplary individuals. She neither has have national honors nor military honors to meet GNG. SusunW (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sources mentioned do not meet GNG as they are routine or mention her in passing. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - whilst I agree with SusunW's comments re the WP:GNG (policy) over-riding WP:MILPEOPLE (an essay) Pangelinan doesn't appear to meet the threshold of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG either to me. An accomplished career to this point which seems to have received some passing coverage but that is it. Anotherclown (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. A number of reliable independent sources discuss the subject in some depth. The amount of detail given by the article, entirely based on these sources, is evidence. There is significant coverage of the subject, which is enough to establish notability regardless of the reason for the coverage. Rank, awards, official posts etc. are irrelevant to Notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I note that the new editor who started this page began it as a draft and submitted it for review at Articles for creation. reviewed, approved and promoted the article into mainspace on 6 July 2015. There seems to be a process problem here. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I noted the same but was unfamiliar with the protocol of whether I could ask his vote to be stricken on that basis.SusunW (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose is allowed to have second thoughts, although it must be a bit discouraging to the author. This is anyway not a voting process but a discussion. The subject does not meet the criteria in the essay WikiProject Military history/Notability guide, but the General Notability Guideline is all it has to meet, so the nomination reason is invalid and some of the comments above are irrelevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep Per Aymatth. If there's coverage in multiple reliable sources it should pass GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

KEEP This article clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines with several of the articles being specifically about her and several others including her on a short list of people recognized as being remarkable people. These reliable sources give more than enough information to create a start class article....and that is exactly the purpose of the notability guideline. (It is not our job to decide whether she is important enough for an article, but to decide whether reliable sources give adequate information to discuss her.) Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 02:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

KEEP  Her leading role from within the military as an advocate and practical leader in support of damaged service veterans is well attested by the sources and marks her out as (1) interesting and (2) of particular importance to a very large constituency of potential and actual wiki-readers whose families are directly and personally affected by issues which, in previous generations, governments have been too quick to dismiss out of hand. Also, it appears from the sources that there is plenty more scope for additional "marks of notability" to be added when someone gets the time to do it. That said, the important question is not one of "guidelines" over what we should think. Many Wikipedia readers are smart enough to be able to think for themselves, and that should go for Wikipedia contributors as well. An important test is whether there is information included that is important or interesting (better still, both) for the generalist reader who wants to decide whether it's worth moving towards a specialist level of knowledge. Clearly with Susan Pangelinan there is. There is clearly NO requirement for EVERY wikipedia reader to find EVERY Wikipedia entry interesting or important, or even comprehensible. (Though on the planet I inhabit the comprehensibility bit is ....   quite seriously important   ....)  And wikipedia's declared eye watering ambitions for itself are not well served by nominating for deletion an entry of this nature before more than the first few lines of the first draft have been completed. Every wiki-entry is a work in progress: let us not block the progress without good reason. Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Treating the GNG criteria in a rule-based manner, the subject (barely) passes. So I go with a general presumption of an article being warranted. When in addition there is sufficient reliable material to reference a brief overall biography of someone with high achievements, I think the article is worth keeping. Thincat (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aymatth. --Rosiestep (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - the sources are not particularly substantial (eg: the Sacramento Bee piece relegates her to a soundpiece for the main topic of rehabilitating war veterans. However, there's no obvious merge / redirect target, and the sources are all acceptable for a BLP, so the only remaining option is to keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  09:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2015 (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.