Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill McKown

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, consensus is that this person does not meet the notability criteria. - filelakeshoe 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McKown

[edit]
Bill McKown (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)

Reason: This is a resume for an individual managing a small airport; not worthy of any note. Scarfscarfscarf (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Not sure if this nomination is serious? (It's the first thing this editor has ever done) Notability is asserted (very clearly) and backed by multiple reliable sources - arguably enough even to pass WP:GNG without having to go anywhere near any of the topic-specific criteria. But I would suggest he would probably pass the criteria outlined at WP:SOLDIER on the basis that he was Commanding Officer of the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps. But I'm happy to defer to military people on that question. His current (post military service) day job as an airport manager is irrelevant - his notability is surely based on his military career and notability is not temporary. Stalwart111 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid you are confused about deletion process. The fact that "notability is asserted" is relevant to speedy deletion, so that the article "'Sarah Lee is the prettiest girl in South Ohio', says local jock on KTVU interview." - would not be summarily deleted. At AfD, "is asserted" is not enough; the notability must be confirmed. I found none. Colapeninsula below detailed point by point. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all confused; that was more a response to the suggestion from the nominator (that called the article a "resume") that notability hadn't even been asserted. That may not be what the nominator was suggesting but it was hard to tell. If anything, I'm confused why a brand new editor would chose an AFD as their first "contribution". I'm more than happy to drop the "speedy" from my !vote if there's a want to discuss this article. The nomination, though, is clearly based on some misguided belief that the notability of the subject is entirely based on his current role as manager of an airport. That's clearly not the case, so the nomination is strange to begin with. Aside from that, there's no suggestion that WP:BEFORE was even considered - it actually looks like the nominator didn't even read the article in full before nominating. The fact that someone would join WP for the sole purpose of having an account with which to nominate something for deletion strongly suggests either WP:COI or a real-world-related WP:POINTY nomination. I really couldn't care less about the subject - as I suggested and as Cola confirmed, I'm not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the application of WP:SOLDIER. I'm just not particularly excited about what seems quite plainly to be an abusive nomination. Stalwart111 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does your opposition to the deletion rest on the fact that I don't have a lengthy wikipedia history? That's a bit of a straw man. Yes, I should have been more clear in my opposition and cited WP:SOLDIER but I'm not exactly well versed in the ins and outs of procedures and didn't even know thing like WP:SOLDIER existed. Since you seem offended by that, I apologize. However, if you require a psuedo-resume for my editing history, I created the pages for Prism (tv channel) and Task Force Viking which I am very proud of. And yes, I made another mistake by creating a new user name instead of going back and figuring out the user name for an account I haven't used in years (since I don't log in when i do occasionally make edits). It just seemed to me that this article is simply about man has not really done anything of note (once again, sorry for not citing WP:SOLDIER). 0-6s, while a high rank, aren't particularly uncommon, and nothing in his history stood out that distinguished him from the tens of thousands of 0-6s that have served in the last 30 years. Scarfscarfscarf (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't rest on it - my point was that it surely takes something particularly concerning about an article to prompt someone to create a new account (regardless of previous accounts) for the sole purpose of nominating an article for deletion. That in and of itself is not problematic but it struck me as strange that someone would go to the trouble of creating an account for that sole purpose, only to then cite the most inanely trivial part of a biography as a reason for deletion while ignoring the 75% of the biography which relates to a subject's military record. Maybe it's just me. But where was the talk page discussion (nothing since 2010) or improvement tags or any attempt at all to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM? I appreciate your explanation and I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit indignant about it. I suppose I'm just concerned that this is step 10 for an article where no-one has even considered steps 1 to 9. Stalwart111 01:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I guess it's at this point we "Agree to Disagree". I'll just say these two last things and then go about my merry way. First, creating a new account was an insanely easy process and was told to log in or create a new account when I put the delete tag onto the article, and I took the path of least resistance creating the new account(sorry); it was so much easier than looking up my old account. Lastly, I simply ran into this McKown page during my regular browsing of Wikipedia and this o-6 has done nothing any other o-6 (sorry to him) hasn't done. If McKown ran SOC or received a bunch of Bronze Stars with V device, I wouldn't have flagged it; but this is simply an article detailing a career officer like the millions of career officers through history that have done their job but not anything of note such as running SOC or valor in battle. Okay, I'm done. I'll probably edit another article in two years under another account after I forget about this one. Sorry! I'll try to follow the guidelines better in the future (but don't hold me to that, ha!). Scarfscarfscarf (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable delete I don't see that he meets WP:SOLDIER. He was a navy captain which isn't a flag officer; he doesn't have the highest medals for bravery; he's not made a contribution to military science or technology or played a leading role in a major event. CO of the Naval ROTC is much lower than Chief of Army Staff (the given example of a notable position in WP:SOLDIER). He comes close to meeting WP:GNG but the coverage is mostly very local press (Pagosa Sun) and some newsletters; a document hosted on scouting.org doesn't count for notability, and nor does this brief mention in a news story, or a report in The Talon, "a community-input newsletter" from Aztec, NM. Being a distinguished eagle scout doesn't make him notable (it has zero independent press coverage) and nor does running an airport. If there are articles about him in national press/major newspapers, or material in books from major publishers, I would reconsider, but Google Books doesn't show anything. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After going through this article I have to say I'm pressed because it's the most detailed attempt at meeting WP:GNG that I've seen, yet it seems to fail badly at it. Colapeninsula summed it up perfectly well. This seems like a nice person, and he's had some accomplishments, but I'm just not seeing anything that would make me conclude he is notable for anything in particular. Certainly not from a military standpoint. §FreeRangeFrog 01:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's never done one notable thing. Where'd they find this guy, the phone book? Qworty (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of people-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bill_McKown&oldid=1144346021"