Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry W. Steadman

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 draftify. czar 04:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Henry W. Steadman

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

Non-notable military person. Steadman's record is laudable, but it does not rise to the level that more than routine or primary (testimonials from close family or team members) coverage is available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61? Any objection to withdrawing this in favor of moving it to draft space? Without actual knowledge, but on reasonable informed experience of having lived through the Vietnam era, I am betting there are sufficient reliable sources to write an adequate article on paper someplace. This man's stellar record and his role in USMC recruiting should have generated some coverage, and it appears we have a motivated group of SPA's that are interested in working on it. I'll be happy to guide them in the process. John from Idegon (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and just do it. As the article stands it is very likely to be deleted, whereas as a Draft, it will be relatively safe from untoward attention until it is ready. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: Moving an article from article space to draft space during an AFD discussion sort of circumvenes the whole AFD process. The whole point of this discussion is to generate consensus regarding the fate of this article. For myself, I have no objection to moving it to draft space for whatever improvement might be possible. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft at best as this is still questionable and my searches have found nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 6 May 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.