Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raul Escribano

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. The arguments that there is insufficient significant coverage are stronger than those that the subjects meets WP:SOLDIER. J04n(talk page) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Escribano

[edit]
Raul Escribano (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)

Article created by a subordinate of this Army general, constructed entirely from Defense Department handouts. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SOLDIER, and reads like a resume because it is based entirely on Army handouts. A diligent search has failed to show any articles in independent secondary sources sufficient to demonstrate notability. The only independent source even mentioning him is this article, in which he warrants one paragraph that simply repeats what's in his official bio. Coretheapple (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first source you cite is actually the same one I linked, the single paragraph in elnuevodia.com, put through Google Translate. The second is a primary source. As for that book: come on. He is listed in a footnote. I think this link would be more useful. You're claiming that his being cited in one footnote in one book for an article he co-wrote in 2000 makes him notable, that and press releases? Coretheapple (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying. I'm surprised there aren't sufficient sources, but that's how it is sometimes. Even his place of birth cannot be confirmed and is omitted from DoD press releases. Also, it should be noted that WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not a notability guideline, but it clearly says that primary sources alone are insufficient to establish notability. Coretheapple (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you cite [1], which I mentioned in my nom, is an article on several people that contains all of one paragraph on the subject, clearly lifted from a DoD press release. I'm surprised that you would argue that the second source http://www.usfk.mil/Media/News/Article/993194/officer-embraces-the-borinqueneer-spirit-through-respect-for-those-who-came-bef/ is an independent secondary source sufficient to sustain this article because the general himself didn't write it. Come on. It is an "article" on the website of "U.S. Forces Korea" written by "Michelle Thomas | USFK Public Affairs." The subject not only doesn't meet GNG by a country mile but even the "SOLDIER" essay requires secondary, which is to say, non-military-PR sources. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: from what I can tell the requirements for significant coverage are not met. For instance is there information on his date and place of birth? Where did he go to high school? Did he commission through the ROTC program? etc ... (Equally, there is a lot of uncited information in the article, which as a BLP, really should be sourced or removed). While the subject's rank is equal to many others who are notable, it doesn't mean that he is automatically notable. That is the point that WP:SOLDIER tries to make. Potentially, there is a presumption of notability, but as that has been challenged, it should be shown to be the case through the provision of reliable sources. If significant coverage can be found, I would be more than happy to change my opinion. Regarding the guidance at WP:IGNORINGATD: from the look of the subject's postings, I'm not sure if there would be any valid merge or redirect targets, but would be happy to consider this as an option if one could be identified. The most notable posting was probably as the commander of the 501st Military Intelligence Brigade (United States), but it would be hard to merge to that article without breaching WP:UNDUE. Still, it is a possibility, which probably could be explored (maybe as part of a list of commanders, so long as it could be sourced?) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SOLDIER, which means that he is presumed notable. Date of birth is often hard to find for military BLPs. People tend to be nervous about publishing it these days. (Athletes don't get a choice!) Nothing wrong with an article being created from Defense sources, or by a subordinate, which in fact we encourage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion at T:COI, such editing, specifically for this article (that is how I became aware of it) is paid editing governed by the TOU and in fact actively discouraged. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I've said before, you have the consensus of a dozen editors at most on that guideline that you curate so well. Guidelines of the community are supposed to reflect community norms. You cannot change community norms by pushing changes through guidelines.--v/r - TP 03:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. I didn't express a particularly firm opinion (I said it looked like paid editing but "I am not sure") and no one talked about a change in the guideline.[2] You should actually read a discussion before flying off the handle about it, and in any event it is not a central issue here as COI is not a reason for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about your dispute about whether it is encouraged or discouraged. Inside MILHIST it may be actively encouraged. And that is because the Military has it's own history departments which have huge archives of information that the public may or will never have access to because the military cannot afford to digitize it. Sometimes there is no better way than to use books or articles written by the military on military topics. Just see how many military sources I used in Ford Island.--v/r - TP 20:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources anywhere that meet WP:V, by all means cite them. All that exist for this subject are press releases with limited information. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't get it. There are droves of information in archives that not anyone can access. Just like NARA. Without a Wikipedian in Residence, which doesn't currently exist, all we have to gain access to this material are Wikipedians who are in the military or work for the government.--v/r - TP 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e. WP:GNG). He seems to have had an accomplished career but has not received the level of coverage to date required to meet threshold. That said I do not agree with the COI concerns, nor do I see an issue with the use of Defense sources in general (especially for facts about his career and basic biography) as they will no doubt be fairly accurate. However, for coverage to be considered "significant" I would expect there to be coverage beyond such sources in references which would potentially provide more detail (e.g. some of the details Rupert mentions above). Whilst it may be argued he passes WP:SOLDIER it is clear that MILHIST cannot and does not make any special claims of status for that essay and it is merely intended as guidance to editors thinking of creating articles as to which subjects are presumed to be notable under policy. In his case this presumption does not seem to have been proved when challenged. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. General officer. Passes WP:SOLDIER, which, essay or not, has been the accepted standard for military biographical notability for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I'm not overly concerned about the use of "official" documents to verify certain things in the biography, but such sources are not independent of the subject and aren't useful for demonstrating notability. What we do have that is independent isn't very much. I do disagree most strongly with the notion that we should throw the WP:GNG out of the window in favour of "presumed" notability for certain classes of living people. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per Anotherclown above, just not notable at this time and the fact he is a general officer alone is not enough for a keep. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2017 (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/Raul_Escribano&oldid=1080466944"