Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everett Rollins

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Rollins

article is COI, being written by the subject, and does not demonstrate actual lasting notability aside from that of any active serviceman with a nice record Chris (クリス) (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It pretty much fails WP:BIO. His mention in the five sources is piecemeal at best. Black-Velvet 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief this article was not written by the subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.124.4 (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the editor's username is Rjeveret, who has only edited three other articles, you'll understand that we totally ignore your dubious claim. Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

// Nice Chris. But as Rjeveret myself, I can personally say that you should not ignore this claim, because it is true. I'm only a fan.Rjeveret (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note This IP address, 214.3.124.4, is registered to DoD Network Information Center. Chris (クリス) (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

didn't say there wasn't a relation...but it is not an autobiography —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.124.4 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it is still a conflict of interest. Sorry, I think this one has to go. Delete. --Bduke (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so you are saying that if there is a connection based on acquaintance it is a conflict of interest? I suppose that makes all primary sources suspect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.193.86 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is saying that, as Wikipedia does, Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend. To which I would add that the claims made by two anonymous IPs should never be taken as legitimate primary sources. Chris (クリス) (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

//Ah man Chris, I should have known that you would support the Galactic Empire.Rjeveret (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. But I do notice that most information on organizations and government agencies is submitted by those organizations and government agencies, the same on companies. I could provide thousands of examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffwalk (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which neither adds to this debate nor establishes notability for the subject. Chris (クリス) (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with due consideration of the COI issues, if the tone is neutral and it's well referenced, this can be overcome. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Rjeverett has nothing to do with Capt. Rollins. AND What specifically is wrong with this article?Rjeveret (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"we totally ignore your dubious claim." Why? You sound like the south end of a north bound mule. Rjeveret (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI has not been demonstrated by originator of AfD. Noteability and style have been commented on in reference to Scouting and this article has been rated, as currently written to be of "Mid-importance" on the importance scale as part of the Scouting WikiProject. Perhaps there is someone or perhaps user:rjeveret that can work on this article from that perspective. As far as I can tell this is the only Coast Guard Aviator to have flown in combat and been decorated as such during Desert Storm, that in itself is notable and unique.Cliffwalk (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That demonstrates notability, if true, in which case the article should be rewritten to focus on that. The article is unencyclopedic at present and refers to him as both Captain and Commander. Pick one. Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2008 (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.