Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hart

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 KEEP —Whouk (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Hart

He sounds like a top bloke, but there's nothing to suggest he's notable, though that information has been asked for. --Hughcharlesparker 14:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep and clean up and expand. "Dogface Soldier" was a pretty popular song (hit for Russ Morgan in 1955). GassyGuy 17:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless verifiable sources can be provided. I only got 54 ghits for '"ken hart" "dogface soldier"', but it may be that there's info available in back issues of stars and stripes or something. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 17:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Wrote a notable song with sufficient additional accomplishments to be considered notable himself. Those additional accomplishments need to be sourced, however. Powers 19:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Dogface Soldier alone qualifies him. Google comes up with lots of stuff on it, and the song is good, too :P Crum375 19:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Dogface Soldier gets 262 unique google hits [1], whichis pretty damn good for a song from the 1940's. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 21:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I must say that I didn't realize that by putting an unsung hero into the annals of cyber history would cause such a stir, but this is good. I want to say Thanks to those of you who say Keep and can see that the significant importance of Wikipedia is to historically log events, people, places, things, happenings, etc. that have never been given their due notoriety. I intend to keep my personal association with Ken Hart out of this article, and keep it completely factual with the help of Wikipedians... I work for my livlihood, and have limited time to grow this article, but I hope that the Wikiculture shall bare with me as I provide enough facts to allow others to assist with the article and spin-off other articles from this man's life that need to be known as well. As noted, Mr Hart died in February, and, coincidentally, his wife Jane has just passed away peacefully this past Monday morning..there are others in Frankfort Kentucky and military veterans who will supply me with the facts and/or become Wikipedians themselves. This is the least I can do for my friend and a man that touched so many lives. This includes prominent people, some of whom were not aware that Wikipedia even existed. This article can only produce a positive karma within Wikipedia. THANK YOU --ZorroZ 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per all above. --Merovingian {T C @} 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. If Dogface Soldier deserves an article (and my internet research suggests it does) then the article should be there and Ken Hart should redirect to it. AndyJones 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that as written it is a memorial and not an encylopedia entry. For instance, "lovely" wife would have to go (although I have no doubt about that fact myself), as well as the many obit-like items. IOW, a major rewrite is needed to transform what is currenly an obit into a proper WP entry. But being a publisher, actor, WWII pilot and co-composer of a famous song sung by troops everywhere with a monument for the song, assuming all properly sourced, IMO merits a WP:BIO entry, certainly under the "WP is not paper" policy. Crum375 21:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Scrape clean and start anew - Ken Hart is a notable enough composer, but Wikipedia is no place for a eulogy. B.Wind 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - All nay-sayers please review the latest version to see if we are there yet. Thanks, Crum375 00:01, 29 May 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.