Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Schmuck

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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Schmuck

Donald Schmuck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a somewhat misleading page. I had to read the whole article to realize that this individual has accomplished absolutely nothing notable. All of the biographical info has been in the article since the page creation by a user named FrankSchmuck. The only real page that links to it is a disambig of "schmuck". He has performed no act that seperates himself from every other military officer in the history of the United States. A g-search returns 224 hits, including Wikipedia (No. 1) and its mirrors as well as various "schmuck" insults to other people named Donald. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also has COI issues due to similarities between the surname of subject and creator's username. Kavadi carrier 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "commander, 1st Battalion, 1st Marines under the regimental command of Col. Chesty Puller. He led the 1st Battalion in action during 1950 and 1951, including the Chosin Reservoir operation and the Spring Counter Offensive." and an editor says he "has accomplished absolutely nothing notable." That sets a pretty high standard. The verifiable fact that he led a battalion in notable battles in the Korean Conflict and retired as a Brig. General is easily notable enough for an article. I don't care who wrote the article: please address the content and not the editor. Edison 18:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • He has performed no act that seperates himself from every other military officer in the history of the United States. A g-search returns 224 hits, including Wikipedia (No. 1) and its mirrors as well as various "schmuck" insults to other people named Donald. -- ßottesiηi (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Every fact asserted in the article is verifiable, and it is written in neutral language. The problem with a conflict of interest is the danger that the article won't have NPOV, but this article has overcome that danger. Buck Schmuck is a keeper for me (one of the sources reports that as his nickname). I really expected this to be some kind of joke due to the sound of his name, but it's not. OfficeGirl 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison, who really sheds light this time. --Christofurio 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He seems like an extremely impressive person, but having participated as a company grade officer in notable battles does not make one notable per WP:BIO nor does simply achieving the rank of Brig Gen. The article needs to provide evidence that Schmuck himself was singularly notable in either these battles or at some other point in his life. As a company grade officer in the Korean War, I have no doubt that his actions were vitally important in the immediate sense, but I do have serious doubts as to whether that translates to notability in a historical context. I salute General Schmuck's service, but this article reads like a combination of a CV and obituary without any attempt at establishing notability. JGardner 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Edison --Amists 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think that a military officer who rises to the rank of General is sufficiently notable, even if he's just a one-star. I didn't add any info to the article because I'm not knowledgable enough to do so in sensible fashion, but there seems to be a reasonable amount of published material about his military record in circulation (particularly his combat record in Korea). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison, I agree with Hit bull, win steak with the caveat of a major military which the US is. Forgot to sign: Carlossuarez46 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Edison, but mark as an orphaned article. Nihiltres 01:13, 13 November 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.