Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Darden


 * 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 per consensus. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

William A. Darden

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Interesting but there is no compelling assertion of notability apparent in the article (fails WP:MILMOS), limited independent coverage of subject. Appointments, rank and medals received don't appear to merit an entry, which is unfortunate as Wikipedia has been inclusive to a fair bit of cruftiness of late ;-). Is the Bronze Star and Legion of Merit particularly significant awards in the US order of precedence? Are they comparable to, for example, the British Military Medal (awarded to over 130,000 people! At least according to the article)? SoLando (Talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —SoLando (Talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No more notable than the hundreds of thousands of other soldiers with similar decorations.  And the account that created the article is virtually an SPA:  Qworty (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While these are honorable decorations demonstrating courageous military service, they are not the highest decorations offered in the US military and do not automatically confer notability. Nor do any of his other, rather perfunctory, staff assignments. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. While there does appear to be some original research here, along with some unnecessary cruft, the sources listed, while not incorporated as proper references, seem to be, at least on the surface, reasonable enough secondary sources to nominally satisfy WP:RS. While the Christian Activities article was written by a family member, it was nonetheless published through a standard editorial process of a print magazine. (The magazine, BTW, cites a circulation of 15,000 to 20,000 a month in the Nashville area.) The other sources seem to be of varying levels of coverage, though it is hard to determine without actually seeing them. As to the notability of the subject's awards, while each by itself likely doesn't confer notability, nor might not be just a couple of them, the combination of all of them may amount to a reasonable degree of notability. Thus, I recommend that this article be cleaned up, crufty information culled, and referencing improved. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete LaMenta makes a good but not convincing argument. Colonel isn't quite high enough to be inherently notable. He doesn't appear to meet WP:MILMOS. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (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.