Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Galoff

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. Cirt (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Galoff[edit]

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

Per other recent AFDs, such as those for Henry Blomberg and Daniel Martin, soldiers who have received nothing more than a Distinguished Service Cross are not notable enough for individual WP articles. Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have nothing but the utmost respect for this soldier's most distinguished actions in service of his country. That said, Wikipedia is not a memorial and Galoff does not appear to be notable under WP:MILPEOPLE. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recipients of second-tier decorations are simply not notable enough unless there is another compelling reason for notability. No disrespect to them whatsoever, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial to bravery. I recommend we speedy all these DSC recipients that include only a citation and virtually nothing more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely disagree with the consensus that states that being awarded the DSC or the Silver Star is not enough to be considered "notable", but the fact of the matter is that the consensus has consistantly come out that way here on Wikipedia, and we all have to play by the rules. Rapier1 (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but allowing recipients second- or third-tier awards to be inherently notable would generate massive amounts of articles. In a British context, nearly 9,000 DSOs (second-tier) were awarded in WWI alone. Over 20,000 DFCs (third-tier, only awarded to aircrew officers) were awarded in WWII. Around 100,000 or more gallantry awards were probably made to British servicemen in each world war. And many countries are far more generous with medals than the UK (compare the average lengths of the medal ribbon bars). Yes, WP is not paper, but there are limits to the people who are eligible for articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not going to debate this again. I stated my opinion. I stated the rule. I stated my intention to stand by the rule. I don't have to like it. Rapier1 (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, a lack of non-trivial mentions in reliabler sources means the article fails WP:GNG, which trumps all else really. Skinny87 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:V and the precedent set by the aforementioned AFDs in the nomination. Admirable, but not quite notable by Wikipedia's standards. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing against the fellow, but he does not appear to pass WP:ANYBIO, and thus I do not feel that he merits inclusion. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 04:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject was clearly courageous and dedicated, he does not meet current guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 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.