Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert B. Brown

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert B. Brown[edit]

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

It has been long established (see WP:SOLDIER) that recipients of single second-level decorations are not notable enough for articles failing some other reason for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing several primary sources online, and having used the Sandusky-Erie County Library, I know that they've got tons of local history resources, so I expect that there are other primary sources in print; consequently I expect that someone could produce enough secondary sources for WP:BIO to be satisfied. However, I'm quite confident that they don't yet exist, so at the moment he doesn't qualify under our notability criteria. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although coverage in local newspapers to the effect that "local man wins medal" is not really sufficient coverage to prove notability for Wikipedia. You could find that for pretty much anyone who was decorated or killed in action. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that they probably have tons of primary sources, e.g. his genealogy and lots of other documentation, and from that someone could probably produce a bunch of secondary sources and make him notable. At the same time, I'm saying that the secondary sources don't seem to exist, so we shouldn't wait until someone produces them. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I realised what your point was. But my point was that any sources are likely to be genealogical and local and not really sufficient to make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, you didn't realise. My point is that they're primary and insufficient for notability, but someone could produce secondary sources, publish them through reliable presses, and get enough to make him notable. We don't care how miniscule someone is in real life: if they get multiple solid secondary sources somehow, they're notable. It's just that this isn't likely to happen, and it definitely hasn't happened yet. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but I realise your point entirely. What I am saying is that even if someone did write a book about him it would undoubtedly be just a local/genealogical history which would still not make him notable. Just having a book written about you does not make you notable. It depends on the book (or books). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely delete this - I concur with all points made by Necrothesp without exception. DocumentError (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (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.