Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny dietz

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 of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 13:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Danny dietz

Although we extend every sympathy to Mr Dietz' family, it seems that the subjects only claim to notability is that he was killed in action. In the past this has not been enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article, but I thought we'd give the community it's chance to have an opinion. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• You obviously have no appreciation for US Special Forces and the contributions they make for you to have the ability to type on your computer freely everyday. Other areas of importance are the one year anniversary of his death next week, Operation Red Wing being the biggest loss of Navy Seals since their incarnation by President JFK in 1954, or how this man embodies what an American hero is. All the information is facts, cited with sources. How exactly isn't that grounds to take part in an encyclopedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog44 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nom. Hog44's comments notwithstanding, as DJ Clayworth says above, dying in combat is not enough to justify a Wikipedia article. ---Charles 18:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Who are you to say one person's death is more important than another??— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hog44 (talk • contribs)
    • I made no such claim, sir. Please do not make such accusations in the absence of evidence, it is really terribly rude. ---Charles 01:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unless we want an article on every soldier who was killed in WW1, as well. Tevildo 19:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with all respect to a fallen serviceman. Wikipedia isn't a good place to host a memorial page. It's not that he's not "worthy", it that we have standards that must be upheld. ---J.S (t|c) 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, with the same respect, but WP:NOT a memorial. Also, the only real source is [1] (the other mentions Dietz's death and age, but nothing else about him)... and the article as it stands is a copy of the sealteam8 source. (I'm marking it with Copyvio in a minute; it's an exact copy, except with the references.) Mangojuice^talk 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is neither a memorial site nor an obituary. --Slgrandson 19:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and WP:BIO, without prejudice... it simply does not meet the guidelines. Originator has blanked the article. Could almost be construed as a speedy via author's request.--Isotope23 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD:G7 (article blanked by original editor) and CSD:A3. --Coredesat 23:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DJ Clayworth and Mangojuice. Allow recreation if sufficiently sourced non-copyvio new article is written, but it would need to show much more notability than the average heroic-soldier-dies-in-combat story to be kept. WP:NOT, WP:BIO. Barno 23:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Coredesat. Jammo (SM247) 06:05, 23 June 2006 (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.