Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Edward Hayhurst

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The result was: Keep Roe, Withdrawn Boggs, Delete others, based on notability with respect to the general notability guideline. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Edward Hayhurst[edit]

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

Unfortunately I bring these Silver Star recipients. The Silver Star is the 3rd highest military honor of the U.S. Per WP:MILPEOPLE, regrettably they are not notable. All of articles contain the same format of only listing the citation. Elaine Roe maybe notable as it includes a sentence where she and her fellow nurse companions where the first women silver star recipients. Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following related pages are also nominated:

Delete - Individual articles of these multiple subjects are not sufficiently referenced by multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:SOLDIER. If there is significant coverage found elsewhere to support each subjects individual notability, it should be included in the article, and that specific case should be discussed. Thankfully mention of these individuals will not disappear from the internet. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for Elaine Roe, Delete, per reasons given above; however the statement that she is the first woman recipient would be incorrect. I searched and the subject appears to be one of four that were presented at the same time as a batch awarding. See 1 2 3 --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article about the four recipients that were awarded the Silver Star for the same action should have its own article with Elaine Roe, and the four others, being redirected to that article much the same way the article regarding the four chaplains is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elaine Roe. Delete remainder. Recipients of a single third-level award are not considered notable by default. The first woman to be given an award is notable, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional split !vote: At first, I was tempted to be snarky and denounce a mass nomination, but closer investigation shows that these all were made in a series by one editor: Packerfansam (talk · contribs). She seems to be a serial bio-stub creator (with a strong emphasis on sports players, but plenty of military bios as well). There is nothing particularly wrong with creating lots of articles, or even lots of stubs (in fact, that's commendable, IMO), but the volume and rapid succession does suggest that she's going off of a list or database without a lot of individual consideration to each person and thier suitability. I haven't seen any discussion about such a mass creation, so please let me know if there is one. I've said in the past that I strongly disagree with the provision in WP:SOLDIER that a third-tier valor award isn't enough, and I still stand by that conviction. However, these articles are essentially nothing but the text of the citation, which isn't enough (and violates WP:NOT in trying to make a repository of citations rather than biographies). I feel that means we should improve these articles to something more significant by the end of the AfD, or else transfer the citation text to Wikisource, with one exception. The nominator himself casts doubt on the non-notability of Elaine Roe, and I think we should keep her as a significant female first. I've also notified Packerfansam of this AfD. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Boggs per Dru of Id. A DFC and SS are certainly notable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Roe. Roe may have something as the first female recipient (and infact I seem to remember reading something about that the other day) but the others are not notable. Did not receive a notable military award per the MILHIST guideline, and more to the point these articles are nothing but stubs with little but the official citations used as a primary source. With no reliable sources to show their notability they should be deleted. Skinny87 (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elaine Roe, unconditionally, as above. Keep others, conditionally, until such time as Wikipedia implements more uniform standards for assessing the notability based on awards. It's ridiculous that tenth-class porn awards, reported only in advertising and trade-promotional magazines, are enough to guarantee notability, while third-level military awards, typically well-documented in independent, reliable (if geographically limited in circulation) news media don't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If subjects are notable, even if due to said third-level (or even lower) awards, in such a manor to meet WP:GNG, then the subject would pass WP:NN even without resorting to WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into a single article if there is nothing but the citation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The list at Silver Star#Notable recipients is already longer than it probably ought to be. The consensus was that only recipients with articles should be listed, so unless somebody starts List of Silver Star recipients, then deletion of these articles would probably mean they won't be listed anywhere on Wikipedia. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roe, delete all others: lack of significant coverage per WP:GNG. If all that exists is the primary source document (the citation), that is not enough for a biography. Conversely, if significant coverage exists, then there is no reason why a Silver Star recipient can't be considered notable, however, unfortunately where it doesn't exist it is not enough to be considered automatically notable per WP:MILPEOPLE. In the case of Roe it appears like significant coverage might be possible, hence my keep rationale for that article. I found the following: Google web search Google Books search. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except Roe - per AustralianRupert. The subjects of these articles appear to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore are likely not notable under the WP:GNG. Regardless, I have no problem with recreation of some or all of them at a later date if new sources come to light. Finally I think more context needs to be added to Rowe to make her notability clear. Anotherclown (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geise, Kirkham, Ochs - posthumous awards + Purple Heart - two were medical; no further achievements were possible; Keep Hayhurst - also POW/Medal; Keep Jones + Purple Heart; and, since no on else checked the references, Keep Boggs + Purple Heart & posthumous Distinguished Service Cross (insert snarky mass nomination denouncement here), and this article needs an upgrade; Bresnahan & Roe I will refrain from voting; for the non-posthumous awards I did search for further accomplishments and obituaries; even for the uncommon names I found nothing. Dru of Id (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not sure why Boggs has been withdrawn. The DSC is a second-level award, and this is not generally considered to make one notable either (although two such awards would). Only first-level awards make one automatically notable. And why should posthumous awards, Purple Hearts and POWs be notable? We're beginning to step into WP:Memorial territory here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 5 April 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.