Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter H. Yates, Jr.

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. Although there does not appear to be a copyright problem, concerns on that will need to be addressed by editing. Mandsford 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter H. Yates, Jr.[edit]

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

Contested Prod. This soldier, while reaching general rank, had an unremarkable Cold War career. No particular evidence of notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This biography from the University of Southern Mississippi might offer some further information. The article really needs further sourcing. I also think that it is important to realise that the list at WP:SOLDIER does not state that everyone on the list is "inherently notable", but that they are most likely to have the significant coverage that would make them notable. Thus, this subject still needs to demonstrate significant coverage before notability can be established. Thus, if sources can be found (beyond passing mentions), then the subject would be notable. Without these, though, I don't believe it would be. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a paper reference for the fact that Yates commanded the Berlin Brigade, however, I am concerned that the article might be a copyright violation of this. Is there any way to tell which came first? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first date on the Wikipedia article appears to be 16 February 2007 with this [1]. This page on Web Archive indicates that the "source" was originally published on 9 November 2004. Given that large chunks of the article seem to use the same words, unless I am mistaken it is a copyright violation (please correct me if I am wrong). This being the case, what is the next step? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The website indicates that it was an ROTC assignment. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that puts it in the public domain as a work of the United States military. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi, Bahamut, I think you might be right (not sure of US-PD myself, though, as in Australia the Crown would hold copyright in similar circumstances), but can you provide the link that you are looking at which indicates that it was an ROTC assignment? All I am seeing is the blank word doc and the cached version, which doesn't seem to attribute to any source. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, the URL http://www.usm.edu/armyrotc/... [bold added]. I'd say that's pretty conclusive. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe, but I'm not sure that is conclusive. It doesn't actually attribute the writing to a servicemember. The website that is hosting it belongs to the university, which is surely a private institution. Indeed the "www.usm.edu/armyrotc" page has this on it: "© 1995 - 2010 The University of Southern Mississippi. All rights reserved". As such, unless something is specifically identified as belonging to the US military, I think the most-safe COA is to assume the university owns the copyright and that this article should be deleted and rewritten. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You're probably right to err on the side of caution. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SOLDIER says that that an individual will almost always have sufficient coverage if it applies. It does. I do not agree that an officer who held a key post during important events of the Cold War is not notable, nor that a senior officer closely involved the development of the AirLand doctrine is not notable. And I'm unimpressed with the argument that WP:SOLDIER is ostensibly meaningless because it cannot be used to assert notablility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional weak keep: it needs referencing, but commanding the Berlin Brigade and United States Army Berlin during the Cold War is a notable command appointment of a very significant unit. Though the rest of his career seems to be typical staff stuff, that one assignment is enough for me, if barely. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per AR above, the condition also includes fixing the copyright violation, which requires a rewrite. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, commended significant units in addition to reaching general rank; good enough for me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that given Yates' command appointments and rank he is likely to be notable (per WP:MILMOS/N etc), however this doesn't negate the requirement for significant independent coverage to prove this notability. The MILMOS doesn't say these subjects are automatically notable, only that they are likely to be. IMO this article still lacks reliable sources for verifability. That said I'm prepared to hold off on passing judgement for a bit to see if these sources can be added. Anotherclown (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyright violation per AR. Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a Major General and in the past this is cause enough for notibility although I do admit it needs more references and some rewriting. --Kumioko (talk) 15:31, 24 December 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.