Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigadier General Dennis Hejlik
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The result of the debate was nomination (by me) withdrawn, no remaining votes for deletion. Chick Bowen 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brigadier General Dennis Hejlik Dennis Hejlik
Listed at copyvio, but taken from a public domain .mil site. Still, it's hardly an encyclopedic article; it's just a resume, and doesn't indicate that this is more than just a distinguished but hardly historically significant officer. My vote is for deletion. Chick Bowen 03:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC) After very impressive rewrite by Jonel, nomination withdrawn. This is the right way to use public domain material. Chick Bowen 16:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify my vote -- lots of things aren't historically notable. Most athletes aren't, schools aren't, the news of the day isn't, on a long enough timeline, few if any of us are. But that doesn't mean these things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. An officer of general or admiral rank is encyclopedic imho. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd sure like to see this article become something more than the cut and paste it currently is. However, if nobody loves this article enough to fix it then I would say Delete and hope that somebody adds a much better article later. James084 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to update my vote to Keep. Jonel has shown the article a lot of love and I agree that flag officers are notable. Thanks Jonel for your work! James084 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Terence Ong 04:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)- Comment - flag officers are notable. I've fixed it up a bit. Recommend moving to Dennis Hejlik. Gets some decent Google hits that could be used for further expansion. -- Jonel | Speak 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would concur with the above suggestion. James084 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom unless something notablity is added. Arbustoo 09:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as his position makes him notable. --Rob 09:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Well done to Jonel for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 10:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
