Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay A. DeLoach

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, but I recommend cleanup; the article reads like a hagiography. Sandstein (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jay A. DeLoach

Jay A. DeLoach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable. Only sentence indicating any notability outside your typical Military officer is "played an instrumental role in implementing a visionary "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component", with no source verifying that assertion, and is by itself is pretty weak. The subject has not received significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The article amounts to the typical biography that every flag officer has introducing him/her, and I suspect it is a copy and paste of just that. The "Search for the USS Alligator" section only mentions that he "helped" in the search, not mentioning any role he might have had in the operation. — Ocatecir^T 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - article well written and sourced and meets all requirements established by Wikipedia policy. Subject is featured in the "Who's Who in Executives and Professionals for 2002, 2003, and 2004." in accordance to the official bio of the U.S. Navy which makes him notable, see [1]. There is no "paste" as claimed. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• In regard to DeLoach's role in the implementation of the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component", see:[2] and it's importance in todays modern submarine warfare: [3]. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I dont think it says in either of those links that he was the implementor, really Corpx (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment, and I quote from Vice Admiral Donald: RDML "DeLoach played a critical role in implementing a visionary Memorandum of Understanding between the Submarine Force Active component and the Reserve component. This MOU pioneered many key initiatives that have since been adopted Navy-wide. For example, Active Component Commanders have been assigned as Regular Reporting Senior Officers for their associated Reserve unit Commanding Officers for the past six years in the Submarine Force." soruce: [4] Tony the Marine (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's not a direct quote for the admiral, and I have no idea how this "memorandum of understanding is" (or what role exactly he played in implementing it), but I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the article, as there's plenty of coverage on him as well. Maybe something with knowledge of the navy can explain the importance Weak Keep Corpx (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military Leithp 18:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep - According to google search, DeLoach is notable. I can't understand why anyone would nominate an article of this calibur when there are so many "junk" articles in Wikipedia to choose from. A typical example of what I am talking about is: Lola Corwin. Now, that I could understand if it were nominated for deletion. Antonio Martin (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Went ahead and took care of that one for us. --BizMgr (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I was, with very little effort, able to find more than enough references to DeLoach to satisfy WP:Notability. I will leave to the academians to complete the research, but there is plenty of available 3rd party coverage. --BizMgr (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This academician was unable to find any. There's one report in the Virginian-Pilot, but that's nowhere near enough. USN releases do not count as independent sources. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Notable on two counts. USN flag officer and, at time of retirement, one of only four Hispanic admirals in the U.S. Navy. — ERcheck (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Are all flag officers notable? Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since others seem to have difficulty finding sources, here are some. Sourced. These are just the first three that popped up searching for DeLoach and Navy Reserve reorganization, which he had a key role in. The fact that he was the key architect for such a massive restructure, which earned multiple press notabilities, alone should satisfy WP:Notability. As previously stated, I believe the above arguments are more than sufficiently strong for a keep. The fact that he is cited as an authoritative reference in dozens of articles and journals should also carry weight. --BizMgr (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Said of DeLoach's integration of naval reserve sub forces into the active duty force, as requisite for the new "War on Terror" military model: “Under Jay’s direction, the Submarine Force’s Reserve Component has continued to lead this transformation to the new model of warfighting wholeness,” VADM Donald added.^[1]
• Noting DeLoach's "significant" role in the Naval Reserve reorganization: "Mission Effectiveness"^[2].
• Again identifying DeLoach as instrumental in the reorganization decision-making. "Surface Aid for the U.S. War on Terror"^[3]

As I said, I saw the Virginian-Pilot article. Of the others, one is on a personal website that's not allowable, and the other is a .mil article, thus not an independent source and not relevant for notability. Relata refero (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is a Navy-pub'd newspaper not independent or referential? He didn't write the article, nor did he have any sway over it. The Navy Journalism Corps reports independently like any other journalist. This is not a DoD press release, this is a published article in a print paper. Furthermore, DoD and .mil sources are referenced tens of thousands of times in articles about U.S. equipment and munitions (including USS Alligator, cited in this article). Is this incorrect? --BizMgr (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, True, as you said, the "Virginian-Pilot article" source reaffirms DeLoach's important role and notability. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I said an article in a local paper is not enough. Relata refero (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)e

Perhaps I should have wikified The Virginian-Pilot. It is the largest daily in Virginia, even larger in distro than the Washington Post. It is a multi-time Pulitzer winning paper complete with it's own Wikipedia article. It is also a Top-100 distro paper in the U.S. It is not a local paper. --BizMgr (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The notability of the subject is more or less implied. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:31 2008 February 4 (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.