Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Towne

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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Towne[edit]

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

A Navy Cross isn't enough to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the countless legions of soldiers who have served their countries bravely (and in this case, lost a leg in brutal combat) in World War II, and in so many wars in the saddest stories of human history. Noble perhaps, but not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not policy, but the subject passes it anyway as he "played an important role in a significant military event". There is coverage in sources such as Letters of the Century and Real Blood, Real Guts! and so they pass WP:BASIC. Warden (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY, and he doesn't pass it, getting a Navy Cross for an action however brave is not an "important role in a significant military event". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay too. Such puffed-up personal opinions are worthless if they are not recognised as guidelines or policy. The subject's actions at Iwo Jima were important in assaulting commanding high ground and securing it against fierce counter-attack. Warden (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, I've been waiting for somebody to make that essayception argument. I guess we can throw out WP:VAGUEWAVE as "only an essay" as well then, along with WP:IDONTLIKEIT? More seriously, I think it's rather telling that you dismiss WP:CONSENSUS as "puffed-up personal opinions" that are "worthless". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are plenty of specialised notability criteria which have guideline status such as WP:NASTRO. The fact that WP:SOLDIER doesn't have this status indicates that it lacks consensus. Warden (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, what it indicates is that nobody wants to go through the bother of sending it through the process and having the nattering nabobs rant and rave at it while not doing much constructive to improve it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Played a minor role in the Battle of Iwo Jima. Passing references do not provide notability. While this is a brave man who deserves respect, he doesn't rise to the level of notability required in the espression of well-established WP:CONSENSUS that is WP:SOLDIER, and does not pass WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the argument by The Bushranger. EricSerge (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. role appears to be minor in Iwo Jima. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single second-level decoration isn't sufficient for notability. As others have said, WP:SOLDIER may not be an official guideline, but it's widely enough accepted to count as a de facto one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (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.