Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Wood (United States Army officer)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

William Wood (United States Army officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable army officer - tagged for notability in 2010. Can we decide one way or another? Believe he fails WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. He fails SOLDIER, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. His death made the news, but sadly he will not have the opportunity to become notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment No longer the highest ranking fatality in Iraq. Colonel appears to be the highest rank of any U.S. military deaths in the Iraq war. According to an Associated Press database of U.S. military deaths in Iraq, at least eight other Army or Army Reserve colonels have died in the now-5-year-old war. At least one of those was promoted to that rank posthumously. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, the Associated Press has a searchable database and based on its search results, there were 32 LTC and COLs, of which 10 were COLs that were killed in Iraq; in addition there was one Navy Captain killed in Iraq as well. The only way to determine which is the highest ranked, is to see who had the highest time in grade, as I am not aware of any general or flag officers killed in Iraq. Now general or flag officers would be considered notable per WP:SOLDIER, Colonels or Navy Captains are not considered presumed notable (as general and flag officers go through congressional approval and are technically presidential appointments here in the United States). The question is does the subject of this AfD meet WP:GNG, or received considerable coverage outside of the subject's death (which is questionable). Now if the subject only received significant coverage due to their death than I can understand WP:NOTMEMORIAL being applicable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 06:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete unfortunately, the war made a lot of widows and orphans, but WP is not a memorial. I see the subject received a purple heart, but that alone does not confer notability.   Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 09:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Coverage seems to only relate to his death, meaning he does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a memorial.  EricSerge (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There are serious structural problems with WP:SOLDIER that does not tally with WP:GNG, the bar for inclusion is to high. WP:NOTMENORIAL is not a deletion guideline, or valid reason for deletion.  With regards to WP:GNG Colonel is not an insignificant rank, and he gains some notability for having died.  Overall, there is enough sourcing to have it kept.  It is not a privacy invasion of a low level person because he is dead.  The topic is event complete because of his death.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Er...the bar of WP:SOLDIER is deliberately high, as it's intended to "catch" notable personages who are missed by WP:GNG. If somebody passes WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON then whether they meet WP:SOLDIER or not is irrelevant - WP:SOLDIER only comes into play for people who aren't otherwise notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically, while WP:NOTMEMORIAL isn't a deletion guideline per se, it's classified as stuff your not supposed to include. People cite WP:NOT all the time as valid reasons for deletion. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What sourcing? There is a broken CNN.com link, a one paragraph announcement of this death by Gannett, and a self-published memorial page. Am I missing something? EricSerge (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - War is a sad thing, but unfortunately, we just don't have enough available sourcing to write an article for every solider with a respectable rank that died in action. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Usually, WP:SOLDIER is a good guideline to follow to judge the notability of these people. I see no reason why we shouldn't follow it for this one person. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sad but fails WP:SOLDIER....William 20:24, 4 July 2013 (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.