Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles L. McCawley

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles L. McCawley

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

Memorial page has not addressed notability. I am not sure of the value of duplicating every entry in the "Hall of Valor" to Wikipedia. Ash (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This is not a memorial page and I am not duplicating the Hall of Honor articles, although I think there is some valid argument to creating articles about many of them. This person was 1 of only 23 Marines EVER to received the Marine Corps Brevet Medal (it was a Medal awarded to Marine Corps officers who received brevet promotions but where not eligible for the Medal of Honor. I only recently created this article and have more info to add to it. I also created articles for many of the other recipients of this award and I will be filling in data for them as well. Additionally, he was a Brigadier General when he retired which I think puts him into the Notibility category.--Kumioko (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have consistently held that Brigadier Generals are not necessarily notable. The Home of Heros site states that Brevet medals were officially considered the equivalent of the Navy Cross. He received the medal for serving as Quartermaster during the Invasion of Cuba "in the presence of the enemy"--some of the other awards at the time were specifically listed as "conspicuous conduct in battle" (He later received as DSM for being courageous enough to visit the front line troups while he was serving as QM during WWI) Finally, the only part of the article which is not quotes of the formal citations is a literal copyvio of [1], which is not a ¨US gov source. An interesting example of nepotism, but not notable. DGG (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your telling me that the recipients of an extremely rare award, whether equal to the Navy Cross or otherwise is not notible. It may not be notable to you but it would be to someone in the Marine Corps or a military history reader. And how is that a copyvio, it is the citation of a US governemt military award and whether displayed on the military times site or not it is not subject to copyright. Additionally, it is in quotes and referencing the military times site. I can give you a military reference. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to add here that at the time of the award of the Marine Corps Brevet Medal only one other award that could be received and that was the Medal of Honor which officers where not eligible for in the beginning. The Navy Cross wasn't created for several decades after the Brevet medal was created. --Kumioko (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I go by the sources. (The citations themselves are PD, not the first rest). DGG (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most people are not aware of this, but the four stars representing the four different types of Generals in the United States did not become the norm until after World War II. For a very long time, the highest grade of General in the United States was a two-star, which would make this one star general rather notable for his time period. Because of this I would recommend a that the afd should be closed early pending a more thorough look into the history of the officer in question and his service roles. This may be a notable military officer cleverly disguised as a non-notable officer, and I believe that we owe it to ourselves to allow time for more info to be located and added before judging the article's notability. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Tom's comment. I feel that this article needs some work on, but there are elements that indicate that the subject is notable. I would like to see more before a decision is made. There is a discrepancy, I think, though that needs to be addressed (I have put my concerns on the article's talk page, along with an extra source that might be added). A search on Google books finds a number of hits, although in many regards these may well be passing mentions (I am unable to tell as I don't have full access to the source). — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article does need some work, but I do believe it meets WP:BIO as the subject was a brigadier-general and recipient of the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, among other things. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep The sourcing is fairly weak, with the refs providing little information about this person, but I think that he just meets WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as mentioned the article needs work. Other users above have established that it at least comes close to meeting WP:BIO so lets give the bloke a chance to get the article up to speed. Anotherclown (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that under additional sources and Any Biography he meets creria 1 and 2. I also find it rather odd that knowhere on this pages does it mention military personnel (we have some longstanding determinations that state that Medal of Honor recipients, Victoria Cross recipients and several others as well as most general officers are notible) it seems like a good place to mention that. I was tempted to add it but rather than instigate a potential Conflict of interest I did not but I will leave a note on the talk page requesting someone do it. --Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

we do not have precedent that most generals are notable. Many of them have indeed done notable things, & I have argued myself that Major Generals and higher can be presumed to do so. It depends somewhat on the role. It is relatively difficult to be notable in the military as a quartermaster. DGG (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes perhaps individually these things wouldn't amount to much but when combining them I think we can reasonably call this person notable. I understand that we don't need to have every PFC or Sergeant with an article or even every recipient of a purple heart but I think that someone who received a rare award (1 of 23), recieved a brevet promotion in the Marine Corps (the army abused them heavily but the Marine Corps granted less than 200 of them in about 100 years, achieved the rank of general, was the son of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, became the Quartermaster general, modified the Marine enlisted sword (which is the oldest weapon in continuous use in the US military), probably some more stuff I don't know yet, should be notable.--Kumioko (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to poke a little fun at the serious nature that this notability guideline frequently becomes and this conversation, here is a little article that not only made it past notibility but achiecved featured status. Not quite a bio, but clearly blurs the lines of notibality. :-)--Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article does need a wider variety of sources, GBooks appears to indicate they are available. Edward321 (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — equivalent to Navy Cross, recipients of which are notable by virtue of this award. Notable, verifiable, etc. — ERcheck (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, This nomination clearly reflects the lack of military knowledge that some people have. It is important that nominators read and investigate the subjects of the articles properly before posting the articles for AfD. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Given the article's weak sourcing it seems to have been a reasonable AfD to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish to criticise the nominator here (me) you would do better on the grounds of failing to do a reasonable search in Google News rather than for lack of expertise. Examining Google News now appears to show a number of new sources that may resolve any doubts for notability. This AFD was raised after reviewing the sources given in the article rather than searching for additional ones, depending on the "Hall of Valor" was a possible oversight on my part.—Ash (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm, google news is your first problem, try google books or hitting the library. this guy has been dead for about 90 years so news probably ain't gonna show much. Second, the references haven't changes recently so anything thats there now was likely there last week, if not its probably using google as a source. Third I used Military times hall of honor and home of heroes as my first to refs, but when I created the article I even said will expand later in the edit summery and I still intend too. Lastly, I don't think Tony was criticizing you per say but simply stating that when an article is recommended for deletion, a little research should be applied (doing a google search at least) would be reasonable and not just looking. --Kumioko (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reliable source seems to indicate less than two years before the US entry into World War I, as corps quartermaster and colonel, subject was the third-ranking officer in the peace-time USMC, behind the commandant and the adjutant. The source seems to suggest in September 1915, the USMC had zero brigadiers, only colonels. By my reading both User:Ash and User:DGG have applied rather arbitrary, limited benchmarks (Google News search and military rank, respectively) as deletion arguments, and neither seems to be applicable or useful to this case. Several editors have commented above that Google books produces lots of RS, and examination of several revealed sources shows subject's standing inside the corps was significant (one of twelve colonels, all directly under the major general commandant). I do agree with DGG that the nepotism issue should get coverage in the article, but as a Navy brat myself, I see family tradition as acting as a cohesive more than corrosive force in American military history. I say the page needs sources, not deletion. BusterD (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd meant to add a word against judging a senior officer's military service solely by experience in combat or by medals for valor. Often I see stories where a staff officer impresses others with competence, then finds himself posted to a billet in D.C. (like this subject), West Point, or notable command in logistics, like ordnance or quartermaster stations. Such officers might eventually find themselves at the top of field command, and yet not see actual combat (coastal artillery, nuclear weaponry, submarine service, military prisons). Such service is equally necessary as actual combat, even in wartime, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.