Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Cornelius Humphrey

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Cornelius Humphrey

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

Delete. The subject fails WP:MILPEOPLE as well as WP:GNG. The sources listed are either self-published (Gateway Press, for example) or they make no mention of the subject. This is an apparent genealogical project by a distant relative. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the author of the article. The article appears to have been nominated for deletion while I was making additions to the WWII military record of Major Edward Cornelius Humphrey. I've already noted the additions and circumstance on my talk page, but I'll find them again and re-post here.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This didn't quite fit Speedy. But unfortunately, none of the proposed additions mentioned there will help. The accumulation of minor events does not make for something substantial. Indeed, if someone does have a substantial and notable career, which is not the case here, the addition of minor detail just obscures the notability . DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG( talk )Did you note the three additional awards I added today along with a mention of the source? They are: "As documented in a photostatic copy of his certificate of service (issued at the Separation Center at Camp Blanding, Florida, on February 1, 1946, and signed by Personnel Officer H. S. Mason, Captain AGD), he also received a European African Middle Eastern Campaign Medal ribbon, an American Theatre ribbon, and a World War II Victory Medal (United States) ribbon." It appears that these campaigns should qualify under #4 of the military guidelines for notability. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines say "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign" it's not clear from the article what you consider meets this? Your source is also totally unacceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major campaigns are covered: "He was with the US Army Medical Corps for three and one-half years (1942 -1945), one and one-half years of which were in the campaigns of Normandy, Northern France, Ardennes, Rhineland, and Central Europe." Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As for the added campaign medals, they are "being there" awards. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

for example, the US World War II Victory Medal was given to everyone who served in the armed forces during WW2. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not underestimate the importance of "being there," which was a priority objective. Historical fact: WWII Campaign strategies, plans, and personnel locations were secret and were not ordinarily released to the American press. This may be one reason that the American press at the time was only reporting the deaths of American soldiers. Do you not agree? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This man was a mid-ranking officer. Hundreds of thousands of officers served in the Second World War. Millions of privates and NCOs served. What is special about him? @Mitzi.humphrey: Do you think we should have an article on every single one of them? Just the Americans? Who? What is your justification for having an article on this particular individual? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in the end for stand alone article and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:35, 16 October 2016 (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.