Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward B. Giller

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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward B. Giller

Edward B. Giller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Seems to just miss WP:SOLDIER (awards and rank are too low), and there's nothing particularly distinguishing in the article that jumps out. His association with Project Orion appears to be indirect. MSJapan (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. WP:SOLDIER specifically says that general officers are considered notable. As a major general he clearly qualifies. Not sure why you'd think he doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The guideline gave me the impression that one had to be a 3-star. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't understand how. "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." No mention of three stars there. One star is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Still need the requisite coverage in the reliable sources though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they..."--Savonneux (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

But one can presume and be wrong. A "presumption" is not a "fact." Case in point; the answer to "Dr. Livingston, I presume" could have been "No, he's over there." I could presume someone is notable, and then not find a single source on them. The presumption means nothing if it's not borne out in fact when checked. MSJapan (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

My personal perception of the rules is that presumption overrides actuality. Based on the mass porn-star deletions last year where WP:PORNBIO was taken as the "law" (as it were) for pornographic bios over WP:ANYBIO. I just apply, I don't interpret.--Savonneux (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yet WP:SOLDIER (the essay you quote) explicitly states: "ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources." So in the end it defers to WP:GNG (i.e. policy). At any rate how can a presumption ever override reality? If one presumes something to be true but it is later proven to be wrong, why would a reasonable person continue to hold the presumption of the opposite? Sure hold on to ones presumptions until proven otherwise, I get that, but not after. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep as per WP:Soldier. I don't know why the actuality of his existence and rank is disputed seeing as the official US Air force website has a bio on him. Indy beetle (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it's not about "existence" or "rank" - the "actuality of his existence" isn't the question, and as you should be aware, existence is not notability. What's at question is doing something of note. In short, read the entirety of the policy first. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I said "existence and rank." I know existence isn't the same as notability. I meant to answer GraemeLeggett's comment that we would "need the requisite coverage in the reliable sources." I was asserting that this guy's legitimacy of rank is supported by the US Air Force's official website. And I would argue it is very much "about" his rank, as per WP:SOLDIER #2. Granted, that is an essay, and not policy. So it really depends on whether we in this discussion want to follow the limited consensus behind the points put forth in the essay or the more widely accepted and broad Wikipedia:Notability policy.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - clearly notable per WP:SOLDIER - I personally think that the criteria should be adjusted to include only 3-stars and above as being "automatically" notable, but until that changes, this article is a keep. ArchieOof (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no such thing as "automatic notability" regardless of rank, and WP:SOLDIER certainly does not claim that there is. It uses "presume" which of course requires one to check on a case by case basis as to whether the presumption holds correct for the subject in question. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: My comments above aside I'm on the fence about this individual's notability, and will need to look further at the sources available as there does appear to be some coverage, but I'm not sure I can determine whether it constitutes WP:SIGCOV with out going through it in more depth. Ultimately my main concern here is that the keep arguments seem to be misapplying the substance of an essay (i.e. WP:SOLDIER) which contrary to the arguments above does not create "inherent" or "automatic" notability for anyone (regardless of rank, award or deed), but merely lists topics that are presumed to have significant coverage as req'd by our extant notability guidelines (but obviously would not be notable if that presumption were proven not to apply). Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - consensus says keep but to be sure... Nordic Nightfury 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per SOLDIER. Major general is "too low" a rank? Oy vey. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

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.