- 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 redirect to Battle of Takur Ghar. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neil C. Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These individuals seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT and do not seem to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MILPEOPLE. This seems similar to several other recent AfDs (here, here, and here) of people failing ONEEVENT for a different, though even better covered, event. The event these individuals participated in was the Battle of Takur Ghar. Below is the other article I am nominating for this reason:
Novaseminary (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Novaseminary (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Neil C. Roberts lacks enough notability to be kept, and should be merged to Battle of Takur Ghar. However, I don't agree with Jason D. Cunningham, the award of the Air Force Cross is high enough (second only to the Medal of Honor) that I feel his own notability is sufficient for an article and kept. Beside that, his article much better developed and referenced. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Cunningham article is definitely much better developed and sourced (though that is not the standard). The current consensus per WP:MILPEOPLE, though, is that the Air Force Cross doesn't qualify alone for notability. If not in under MILPEOPLE, and his only other notability is for one event, how does he meet notability? Novaseminary (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect both: sadly, I don't see that either of these two articles satisfy the guidance in WP:MILPEOPLE. A redirect to the battle article might be the solution though, as some people may search for their names, and then they would be able to find some information. Any merge, however, needs to take into account WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, though. (I'm not against a merge, just saying it needs to be done with these policies in mind.) — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Neil C. Roberts qualifies as a notable person by earning our nations second highest honor for valor and by contributing to a significant military event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.15.11 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 April 2010
- Comment Again, per WP:MILPEOPLE, the second highest award is not enough, and his contribution to a significant military event (the same for which he won the award) does not get past WP:ONEEVENT. In response to the editors suggesting a redirect, I do not think that would be a huge problem, but I think the better course is to delete. For more, see my comments toward the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norm Hooten. Nonetheless, if others disagree and the consensus is to redirect, I would suggest a delete and redirect because there is not likely anything that would be merged into the target article that is not already there. Novaseminary (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Coverage not sufficient to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with Novaseminary per the guidline clearly states one award of a service cross does not sufice an article.Feickus (talk) 14:19, 30 April 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.