Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McLean (military officer)

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William McLean (military officer)

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

Already tagged for notability, believe he fails Notability, Colonels are not generally notable under WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent notability. Not senior enough or decorated enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. No notable achievements beyond routine assignments for an officer of his rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, not a notable person, fails to meet WP:SOLDIER. - Ahunt (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Run of the mill, non-Flag officer. No major decorations. Not all officers are notable, sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Not an area I know much about, but how likely is it that someone who is responsible for 50,000 people is not notable? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it highly unlikely that a colonel is actually responsible for 50,000 people, despite the claims in the article. If he was, he'd have a much higher rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a pretty wild claim since the strength of the whole Canadian Armed Forces is only 68,000 all ranks. You will notice that claim in the article is not referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2014 (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.