Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Devlin

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. Courcelles (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Devlin

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

nominated by Jemesouviens32 with no rationale provided HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't understand what was wrong with this article. Nominating user please explain. Mr. R00t ^Talk 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am not sure why on earth this article should be tagged - Devlin is Head of the Canadian Army! Dormskirk (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was the Canadian Battle Group Commander in Bosnia - the article already makes that clear. Dormskirk (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google gives circa 16,000 hits for General Peter Devlin - which is not surprising seeing he is head of the Canadian Army! Of course google hits is not proof of notability but it is an accepted indicator. Dormskirk (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, Devlin progressed normally up to the rank of LGen with no particular exceptional involvement which would demonstrate notability in such a capacity. As a comparable Romeo Dallaire also attaining the rank of LGen is notable based on his personal involvement in the Rwandan Genocide, publishing a widely selling book about same and becoming a serving Canadian Senator.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was indeed the Canadian Battle Group Commander in Bosnia, so were several other Canadian Generals it is notability that I am questioning not his appointments. As a reference Lewis MacKenzie served in the Balkans as well and is considered by Wikipedians to be imminently notable.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Seems notable to me. --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 21:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is inherently notable by virtue of the position he holds- comparable to the Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom) or the Chief of Staff of the United States Army. How distinguished a career he had up to now, I don't know, but he's notable by virtue of being the professional head of a national army- one comprised of some 36,000 troops according to our article. I'd urge the nominator to withdraw this AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly questioning the judgment of the person who nominated this article. It's (fairly) well written and is about a notable subject. Keep it. Mr. R00t ^Talk 21:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While they aren't binding, I believe the notability guidelines at WikiProject Military History are useful. They include those who have "[h]eld a rank considered to be a flag or general officer, or their historical equivalents; or....held the top-level military command position of their nation's armed forces (such as Chief of the General Staff), or of a department thereof (such as Chief of Army Staff)". Both of these apply here and I think it is standard practice on Wikipedia for LGen-equivalents to have articles. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The position makes him notable. Gets in the news sometimes as well for doing things related to his duties, the news people thinking he notable enough to mention.[1] Dream Focus 04:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Strong Delete~~duplicate !vote stricken HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Am encouraging fellow Wikipedians to explore the 'Find sources: "Peter Devlin" – news' on Peter Devlin at the top left of this page, you will find little or no notable coverage of Devlin with the exception of his promotion to his present appointment. The Canadian military is very small comparatively to most other armed forces of countries with over 34 million citizens, Devlin commands not even a division light, in effect, a Major-Generals' responsibility in other armies. Lastly, nothing against the good General as I would recommed reclassification as non notable all Chief of the Land Staff with the exception of Maurice Baril because of his personal involvement in decision making relating to the Rwandan Genocide as a significant part of the UN chain of commmand at the time.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 06:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, the Canadian Forces number 67000 active duty personel and 106 General/Flag Officers http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/gfo-oga/index-eng.asp?mLimit=Genwhich meaning that a Canadian General/Flag Officer commands a total of 632 servicewomen and men, in most armed forces that number of people (Battalion size) are commanded by a Major or Lieutenant-Colonel all of which serves to illustrate my point above.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' There is nothing about the rank of Lieutenant General which compares to normal rank progression. It is notable in itself bolstered by his position in the Canadian Army as well. Secondary publications adequately substantiated his notability in numerous examples.My76Strat (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A senior soldier with multiple reliable sources? --can dle •wicke 04:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - meets all relevant notability guidelines. Can someone point the nom. to WP:BEFORE ? Claritas § 22:07, 16 July 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.