Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Hofer

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. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hofer[edit]

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

non-notable per WP:PEOPLE and WP:SOLDIER no notability sources found Deunanknute (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current page is the beginning of a page that will be worked on my multiple people over the coming days, and will include more references as the page progresses. This is simply the start.Studlaff (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Former senior NCO with no especial notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure that a military college counselor, by itself, makes one notable. Have the new editors forgotten to add something? Bearian (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many fine men and women who are not sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article, and countless villains who are. This subject seems to be in the former category. But if substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources can be found, now or in the future, then we should have this article in. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing that WP:BASIC is met. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by no means a form of disrespect to the Marine Sergeant Major, the subject received passing mention in one non-primary or secondary reliable source, however that is insufficient to pass WP:GNG. Therefore failing GNG, the subject fails SOLDIER & ACADEMIC, and thus I am inclined to supporting deletion of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:47, 19 February 2015 (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.