Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick Conners

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. This is a messy AfD. On the one hand, the article has been posted by an SPA, Peoplemedia (talk · contribs), clearly representing People Media Group, on whose website Captain Conners' services as a speaker are advertised in terms very similar to this article; on the other, the nominator and several of those !voting to delete are plausibly accused of sockpuppetry. The fact that the article was posted for publicity purposes is not itself an argument for deletion, but makes one look hard at the evidence for notability; and though some delete !voters may be socks, we are not counting !votes, we are considering the arguments, and other editors are also arguing to delete. My conclusion is that the case for deletion is made out; the sources cited are not enough to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Brick Conners

Brick Conners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Lacks sufficient notability per WP:BIO. While his service honorable, the individual has done or been awarded nothing beyond what a normal military installation commander has done or been awarded that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. This individual has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the Navy per WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, the individual has since retired from naval service and no longer holds the position in this article. The article is self-promotional and indiscriminate publicity per WP:SPIP. It is almost a verbatim copy of a publicity company's webpage (see http://www.peoplemediagroup.com/people%20who%20speak%20well.html). In fact, the userid of originator, Peoplemedia, matches the name of the publicity company and the user's only activity was to list this page. There is no verification that any of the biographical information in the Background section is correct per WP:RS. Canals86966 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice - The above comments were struck because this AfD nomination was made by a sockpuppet in violation of wikipedia policy. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canals86966 for evidence. Kugao (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Unstruck, as the SPI hasn't uncovered anything just yet, though there probably is something to the charge. However, three experienced editors (w/ 70,000+ edits between them) have found some merit in the deletion rationale. — Scientizzle 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. There are many thousands of other military officers that have served honorably without achieving sufficient notability. If he did still hold the position, he could have his name on Naval Air Station Point Mugu or Naval Construction Battalion Center Port Hueneme, but not his own entry. It does also look like the page was originally created as indiscriminate publicity by Peoplemedia and none of the individual's identifiable information on the entry can be linked to reliable sources. Facet62 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice - The above comments were struck because they were added by a sockpuppet in violation of wikipedia policy. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canals86966 for evidence. Kugao (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet notability in WP:BIO. As Canals86966 noted, it does appear that it was originally listed for publicity by a PR firm WP:SPIP. The notability of this article has been in question since August 2008. Kylix8 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice - The above comments were struck because they were added by a sockpuppet in violation of wikipedia policy. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canals86966 for evidence. Kugao (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete non notable officer. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete: no notability, and Wikipedia is not the place for your resume. bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. The evidence shows that this topic has gained significant independent recognition. References added to the article have been found from reputed media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Kugao (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The citations to the Ventura County Star articles do not do a thing to establish the notability of this individual, and the Reuters link is just a Navy press announcement about an event typical of an installation commander. They merely report on activities that occurred on the base while he commanded it (any other individual would have likewise been mentioned in passing). There is nothing about this officer that sets him apart from his peers. bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment to the closing editor: It is not difficult to conclude that User:Facet62 and User:Canals86966 and User:Kylix8 are all the same editor. And also add to the list User:166.137.10.83 (the IP who has been blanking my edits). How many other accounts have been set up to try to influence the deletion of this article? This account needs protection form the SPs, not deletion. Kugao (talk) 13:41, 12 May 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.