Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic Gehring

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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Gehring

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

Article does not conform to Wikipedia standards and does not provide sufficient meaningful information about Frederic Gehring. Issildur (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does have a link to a substantial NYT obituary as well as a paywalled Time article. These and various books accessible through the above Google Books link look enough to confirm notability. I agree that the quality of the article isn't great, but that is a matter for normal editing improvement rather than AfD. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- U.S. Navy chaplain lieutenant (later captain) at Guadalcanal does not meet WP:Soldier and recipient of the Legion of Merit (although first chaplain to Orlando Sentinel & Presidential Unit Citation to all members of the First Marine Division; author of 1962 A Child of Miracles does not meet WP:Author, nor does portrayal in 1960's The Gallant Hours. National chaplain of the 1st Marine Division Association, and of the Catholic War Veterans. However, obit in The New York Times, Newsday, & Philadelphia's The Inquirer (previous mention) might pass the presumption of notability and the presumption of the existence of offline sources, but Time magazine article is about 'miracle child' (rescued by him). Article is currently full of unreferenced ubsubstantiated unencylopedic uns. Not a hoax, not an attack page, WP:TNT only as a last option. Dru of Id (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article is basically incoherent, but salvageable and its subject does seem to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dru of Id and multiple mentions in books about the Guadalcanal Campaign. Nomination is based on quality concerns (fixable and in fact already partly fixed by editing) rather than valid AfD grounds. -- 202.124.74.181 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this articles only need are more citations for verication, and when the citations are added only have to wait to eliminate from the AfD list.. Thundersport (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GNG. AfD is not for cleanup.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 26 January 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.