Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Geach

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 all. As always there is no prejudice against recreation in the event that sources are found for any of these subjects. Shereth 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Geach[edit]

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

Per other recent AFDs, such as those for Henry Blomberg and Daniel Martin, soldiers who have received nothing more than a Distinguished Service Cross, while admirable, are not notable enough for individual WP articles. Dana boomer (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

Delete all. Wikipedia is not a directory. bd2412 T 04:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete all per nom and bd2412. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Blomberg. Glenfarclas (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per comments in the previous AfD debates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and my comments in the previous AfDs. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all of my previous comments - lack of reliable sources and non-trivial mentions fails WP:GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Fred Galoff. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a bit -- have you checked for each one of them that they are not notable otherwise? DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are (which is, frankly, unlikely) then the articles can be recreated. But they have clearly been created as part of a series celebrating the military history of Wisconsin, not because they are notable in any other way. They were obviously created in good faith, but simply do not reach the Wikipedia notability bar. It is incumbent on the creator to state why they are notable, and the reason he has stated (being a recipient of the DSC) is not sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've looked through the sources, online and some offline. The only who might be vaguely notable is Krause, as CO of a battalion in the 505th PIR. I'll check my sources to see if he's mentioned non-trivially, but the rest are definitely non-notable as far as I can see. Skinny87 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very reluctant delete. I hate the fact that some felon who made a single between arrests that charted 199 out of 200 for 1 week on Billboard is considered notable to Wikipedia while men who actually DID something in their lives are not considered important enough, but that is the state of affairs here. They fail under WP:MILPEOPLE. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2010 (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.