Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas A. Zembiec

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 KEEP. -Splash - tk 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas A. Zembiec

Douglas A. Zembiec (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

My issue with this article is that of notability. Major Zembiec is not a wide-spread easily recognized person within his particular field, ie not looked upon as a widely recognized figure within or outside the military, in accordance with the barometer note of Wikipedia:Notability. Not many, if any, out side of a small, focused group will recognize the Major. Contrast with Pvt Jessie Lynch whom very large numbers of (American) people more or less recognize and also with Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler who is less recognizible than the Maj but who revealed a credible and real plot to overthrow the United States Government, which is notable by any account because of its far-reaching implications.

Although he has been featured in some articles or TV, they are not widespread or largely known stories. He is not the subject of a book, well-known movie or any other endeavour. Resker mentioned there is a movie but nomention of what studio, if any, will produce it, etc. OneNineTwo 03:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


In the USMC community, Doug Zembiec is a name we had all heard...long before his untimely death. There is a move in Navy wrestling called "the zembiec." The Lion of Fallujah story is known to most Marines. His memory has become one of the most prevalent for the USMC in the Iraq era. As someone who works in the community and on the Iraq issue, I can assure you that lack of noteability should NOT be a concern when talking about Doug. Just my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.202.26 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So he is widely recognized within the Corp? That does change things. So far it has been more or less "He was in a few articles and small parts of a book" but if what you say is accurate then he does meet notability guidelines.--OneNineTwo 19:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Doug Zembiec was known not only throughout the USMC, but throughout the Special Operations community as well. I never had the pleasure of meeting him personally, but many of my brothers knew him. He was one of the most respected junior leaders in our modern military and the fact that he may not be considered "notable" by by YOU, or wikipedia, or most of the American public should be looked at as yet another failing of our societal values, rather than any failing of Major Zembiec to achieve your "notable" status. Unlike the sham hero status we heap on NFL and NBA players, this man is a true hero, and should be recognized as such. I think it's a shame that this was even brought up as an issue considering all of the absolutely useless topics in Wikipedia that don't even get questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.148.33 (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I believe that winners of significant awards such as the Silver Star are almost automatically considered notable, especially if they recieve extensive coverage in notable media. The article could do with a lot of work though. --Nick Dowling 07:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 09:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Winner of the Silver Star which is 'the fourth highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of any branch of the United States Armed Forces. It is also the third highest award given for valor (in the face of the enemy).' I entirely agree with the IP contributer who points out the sad inversion of values which means that any footballer who played ten minutes for Hartlepool in 1926 is automatically notable but decorated servicemen are not. I also don't understand the nominator's rationale at all. He says the man isn't notable but concedes that 'he has been featured in some articles or TV' then says, based on no evidence whatsoever 'they are not widespread or largely known stories.' He's covered by third party sources, he was highly decorated, he's notable. Nick mallory 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but more for general notability per secondary source coverage than the award, which as noted is only the fourth highest given out in the US military. According to one source there may be as many as 20,000 medals given out in all wars. Part of the issue I see with these is the POV issue if we have only an award and no secondary sources. In this case the secondary sources are obvious and this is borderline an ill-mannered and bad faith nomination, given the acknowledgement of sourcing. --Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • keep per Dhartung in particular. Pete.Hurd 22:52, 5 November 2007 (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.