Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edwin Powell (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwin Powell[edit]

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

There was no consensus in 2010 AfD, mainly because of poor participation. I cannot see that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mid-ranking officer. No special achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a tough one. Plenty of issues with the article, sourcing, and may be of dubious notability...but this is an example of what makes an internet encyclopedia cool, that people can upload this kind of thing. Allowing for the era he comes from he could be considered notable. I would keep unless someone can discredit the sources. Vrac (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with Vrac in that I also find the whole era thing amazing - I wouldn't know the first thing about writing about someone who was born & died in 1800s so personally I find it amazing that someone this year did!, Anyway waffling on! - I'll admit the sources aren't great but IMHO it'll be beneficial to keep the article than to delete it (Yes I know I'm keeping in essence per WP:ILIKEIT but its extremely rare I do.), –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable sources are conspicuously lacking (notwithstanding an "awesome explanation") and he fails WP:SOLDIER. There's an impressively long bibliography, but no way of telling if it has any connection to the subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2014 (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.