Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Thorburn

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 merge to Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John A. Thorburn[edit]

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

This individual doesn't appear to meet WP:SOLDIER and no reliable sources are provided to support claims of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Subject of article does not meet criteria set forth in WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. However, the subject is the subject of the song which is documented int he article Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story; therefore, I propose that the title be redirected to the article regarding the song, and any referenced material can be merged to that article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is the subject of a movie, a song, and received multiple distinguished flying cross.--v/r - T P 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject being awarded multiple DFCs does not mean that the subject passes WP:SOLDIER. The movie and the song maybe notable, but the subject of both may not necessarily be. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is significantly about the subject and is in post-production.--v/r - T P 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the movie is notable, but whether the subject of the movie is notable. Sometimes the subject of a movie is not notable, whereas the movie itself is. The subject still needs to pass one or all of the following: WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG, WP:NN. At this point I have not seen any significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. A google search for the Staff Sergeant John A. Thorburn brings up hits from mostly sources that fall under WP:SPS and therefore do not add to possible notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just altogether wrong. The fact that a movie was made about the subject implies notability of the subject. Movies arn't made about the average joe. Songs as well; unless your phone number is 867-5309.--v/r - T P 00:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because a movie and a song, and the focus of both is the father of one of the band members who created the song, doesn't make the subject himself automatically notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't apply here. That would apply if the subject was mentioned in the movie or a character in the movie or even played a role in the movie. In this case, the subject is the subject of the movie. Invoking WP:NOTINHERITED here is like saying that the subject of major news articles isn't notable even if the articles and their publishers are.--v/r - T P 14:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating that something does not apply doesn't make that necessarily so. A subject of a news story may not be themselves inherently notable, but the event involving the individual maybe what is notable per WP:BLP1E. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where a movie was made about the subject. A song was made about the subject. Movies and songs are not made about non-notable folks. If that were so, I'd be on Taylor Swift's next album. Perhaps if it were only a movie or only a song, I might sway that WP:BLP1E suggests including the content as a section in an article for the song or movie. But he is the subject of multiple independent significant works: the movie and the song. That passes the spirit and intention of WP:N even if it's not the literal meaning.--v/r - T P 14:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although a movie is to be made about the subject, and a song was written about the subject, the song, which the movie draws inspiration from, was written because the subject is the father of one of the band members. There would be no other reason other then the relation of the subject and the band member why the subject was chosen in the first place. Therefore, WP:NOTINHERETED comes into play. The question is, is the subject of this article, independently notable? If it were not for the efforts of the son, and the subsequent expansion upon the efforts, the answer would clearly be no, IMHO.

Now, is the subject of this article central to the movie, as a character, as the movie as a biographical piece, then the subject is notable within the context off the movie, but is otherwise not notable by himself. Therefore, I can see the content of this article being subsummed into the article regarding the movie, and a redirect created; however, for the subject of this article to have their own article means that the subject is notable in and of himself, which he clearly is not, per WP:ANYBIO, and specifically WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess on this point we'll just have to disagree.--v/r - T P 13:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find his military awards to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. WP:N and its subsidiary pages are guidelines, not policies, which are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions". The large number of military honors support making an exception here. Chester Markel (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In creating WP:SOLDIER editors from WikiProject Military History had a significant discussion as to what military awards would constitute well-known and significant award or honor under WP:ANYBIO. And after the lengthy discussion only single (or rarely multiple) awarding of a first-rate military award, or multiple awardings of a second-rate military award, was constituted as meeting aforementioned criteria. Otherwise you would get individuals who would be considered notable for getting a low rate medal, that is relatively insignificant to those is the know.

Therefore, the criteria that must be met is the second part of WP:ANYBIO, or any other part of WP:SOLDIER. From what I have read the subject, minus being the subject of a film and a song, is not independently notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly nothing wrong or invalid about disagreeing with the threshold of WP:MILPEOPLE. While I'm an advocate of that essay and would like to see it restored to guideline status, I do think that the part on awards is too strict. Even though the subject doesn't have specific medals, stating that the overall recognition is sufficient for notability doesn't invalidate his keep rationale, especially noting that there are exceptions to the rules. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the subject received multiple Distinguished Flying Cross. I may be wrong, but I was under the assumption that is one step below the Silver Cross which is a second rate military award; is that right? If that's the case, it's a significant award to be received twice.--v/r - T P 00:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DFC is a 7th rate medal (overall), and 5th rate medal for heroism. In comparison the Silver Star is a 3rd rate medal for heroism, and a fourth rate overall.

In the creation of WP:MILPEOPLE I suggested including recipients of lower then second rate medals, such as third rate medals of heroism three times should account to notability, and consensus was against that suggestion. If their is a change in consensus, I would be all for it; however, giving my previous proposal, the subject would need to receive the DFC five times, to be notable under the proposal. An Oak leaf cluster only counts for a second awarding.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I wasn't positive but what I'd dug up made it seem like a 3rd rate medal.--v/r - T P 14:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; military medals order of precedence can be a a bit tricky to those not having the experience of looking at them. I myself had argued in the past that a BSM for valor should be part of what others should judge an individual for being sufficient for inclusion, but consensus stated otehrwise. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story. Notability is unclear as indicated in the conversation above. A merge insures that potentially notable material remains on wikipedia. --Pink Bull 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I concur with TP. That he is the subject of a movie is evidence of notability, not a WP:INHERITED issue. Indeed since the movie is a documentary that would be a reliable source towards meeting GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Films aren't necessarily reliable so I don't see how they can be utilized in a notability analysis. --Pink Bull 15:54, 25 May 2011 (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.