Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Edwin Powell (4th nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwin Powell[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Previous discussions have resulted in no consensus, mainly due to procedural issues / lack of participation, not due to an active debate where people were divided. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please can the closing admin note that I closed the previous discussion today because of canvassing by the nominator not a procedural issue and that the previous discussion to that was closed as no consensus only 3 months ago. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not using the notification system to canvass (not deliberately or with that in mind anyway, I thought it was helpful to let those who had participated in previous AfDs etc know about the discussion, whatever their opinion) and I wrote 'procedural error' not 'procedural irregularity' - meaning my error. Boleyn (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If some of the bibliography specifically discuss the subject (not just events in which the subject is alleged to have participated), then notability might exist. As it is, the references are not references (much less reliable sources) and I recommend delete.--Rpclod (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like the only notability alleged here is inherited from his participation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article reads like original research. However, it is possible that if aspects of the article were linked to sources in the bibliography it would be more of an encyclopedia article. I personally don't know if info about this person is in the books in the bibliography, so this is a suggestion to the creator of the article, who appears to be Special:Contributions/75.83.106.140. Otherwise, it needs to be deleted because of being original research. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, first let me say I am tacking in weak due to WP:OFFLINE. The article has a rich bibliography, and I cannot assess online what level of coverage the books listed in the bibliography give to the subject of this AfD. That being said, of the online sources, non appear to give the subject significant coverage as required by WP:GNG & subject does not appear to meet WP:SOLDIER. Therefore, at this time I cannot support keeping this article, as SOLDIER does a good job at clarifying (within the military studies field) what a notable award is for servicemembers when looking at WP:ANYBIO.

This is no way disparaging the service of subject of this AfD. May he rest in peace.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of this article has clearly worked hard on it, but even with all that work hasn't proved the subject notable. valereee (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2015 (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.