Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley J. Jaworski

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. With all due respect, this article does not demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG, and keep !votes do not address it properly except for Ammodramus's one - and even he admits that he found no serious coverage. Max Semenik (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley J. Jaworski

[edit]
Stanley J. Jaworski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mainly, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. It also lacks proper sources. Sabre ball (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although army generals are all notable, I don't think the same applies to National Guard generals. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - National Guard general officers are not notable by any standard I've ever seen. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say that generals in the reserve forces are every bit as notable as generals in the regular forces. They still hold their ranks in the forces of that country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - why? They seldom if ever actually command troops, they get minimal or non-existent coverage in the press; they merely hold a nominal title. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, if you think rank in the reserve forces is "nominal" and they do not command troops you should probably do a little more research. Officers in the reserve forces hold full rank and command units just like regular officers. A general in the National Guard holds the same rank as a general in the regular army and has exactly the same authority. National Guard units serve overseas in wars on exactly the same basis as regular troops and their officers have the same status as regular officers of the same rank. They therefore meet the criteria of WP:MILPEOPLE (and yes, I'm aware that it's not an accepted guideline, but it is widely accepted). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I have to agree that in terms of notability there should be no difference between a solider from the National Guard or the regular army, but on the same hand though I think Wikipedia's overarching policies have to outweigh the policies of individual projects. Given that, Stanley Jaworski just isn't notable. --Sabre ball (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; per WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply; Seeing as how it would appear the rules have invalidated my request for removal I'll instead ask why you would want an article for every flag officer. In the discussion leading up to notability rules for military biographies someone stated that including every recipient of certain medals would flood Wikipedia with biographies no one cared about or were insignificant. How is including every flag officer any different? Surely that thought occurred to someone else... --Sabre ball (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WHOCARES is not a reason to delete (or, for that matter, not create) artcles. Wikipedia is not paper. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simply because if they've reached that rank they are, in the opinion of many of us, by definition notable. We have endless biographies of minor "celebrities" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) and sportspeople who have played one professional game. Many editors here consider that civil servants and military officers who have reached very senior positions after years of service are far more notable. They may not be as "glamorous" or as well-covered by the shallow, celebrity-obsessed media, but that doesn't mean they're not notable. That's actually the advantage of an honours system like the British one - it's hard for even the deletionists to argue that someone who has been recognised by their country and received a high national honour like a knighthood or CBE (which most generals receive) isn't notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I must throw the WP:JUSTAPOLICY flag. --Sabre ball (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - the National Guard isn't a reserve force anymore, for better or for worse. They're routinely deployed, on the front line and in the first wave, and the chief of the National Guard is even on the Joint Cheifs of Staff now. They're a full-fledged military service, and a one-star general passes WP:SOLDIER. That said, though, I think more evidence is needed here to see if there's a reasonable expectation of passing the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, failing WP:GNG. No "significant coverage" by sources "independent of the subject". --Ifnord (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. WP:SOLDIER suggests that officers reaching the rank of general will usually attract sufficient independent coverage to be notable. My Google search seemed to indicate otherwise. However, it showed that Jaworski sat on the Commission to Address Gun Violence, convened by the governor of Penna. in 2005 (source), and that he's presented at a couple of university conferences: at Duke's Triangle Institute for Security Studies (source) and at Chapel Hill's "Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense" in 2003 (source). This might be enough to nudge him up into notability.
Incidentally, Jaworski has retired (source); if the article's kept, that fact should be incorporated into it. Ammodramus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stanley_J._Jaworski&oldid=1138789981"