Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd J. Austin

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus --malathion ^talk 21:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lloyd J. Austin

Doesn't seem notable beyond being a mayor general, possible vanity. Laur 13:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Almost certainly a cut and paste job from an official site - but that doesn't make it a copyvio as it's a work of the U.S. government. He's a 2 star general, and I would say that only 4 and (maybe) 3 star generals deserve to be kept unless they have done something out of the normal routine of their career.CalJW 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It is taken from [1] - isn't that a copyvio?--Doc (?) 15:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

No...US Government sites are PD, unless explicitly copyrighted--Rogerd 15:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I learn each day, thanks --Doc (?) 15:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep There are a lot of less notable people in wikipedia. He is the CG of the Tenth Mountain Division. --Rogerd 04:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless there's a policy or guideline to the contrary, I'd be willing to include the Generals, Admirals and any higher ranks from any country's military. Pburka 16:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, non-notability not established. —RaD Man (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The Major General seems to have an "outstanding" profile, perhaps even more than average of a typical military officer. I'm sure he has made a significant contribution in the U.S.'s military history and perhaps future; due to the fact of the many impressive military activities, events, and commands he has participated in. Also, he seems to have a wonderful assortment of high achievement awards from the military. -UniReb 20:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I've put some serious thought into this one. I don't think every Army divisional CG is worthy of an article; most of the pages would just be CVs with boring assignment histories, kind of like the one in question here. Take it from me folks, every military commanding officer from Lt. Colonel to 4-star General has a rap sheet like Lloyd J. Austin's. It doesn't make them notable. Here is the rap sheet for my old unit's current commanding officer, who I can whole-heartedly assure you is not notable in any way. Compare with Lloyd J. Austin and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. Fernando Rizo T/C 19:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Fernando Rizo... doesn't seem to have earned an article. Flowerparty ^talk 20:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Generals are notable. This guy has several medals including a Silver Star. Klonimus 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Question How many 2, 3 and 4-star generals are there (in the USAF)? --Pyroclastic 00:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Generals are notable enough for mine and there is the potential for further promotion. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Major Generals are far more notable than many of the minor actors and actresses (particularly in adult entertainment) who are featured in Wikipedia. If command over thousands of men and tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment in the most powerful military in the world doesn't make an individual notable, then I don't know what does. In my opinion, all General officers (Brig. Generals, Rear Admirals, on up) are notable. True, there are hundreds of officers who fall into this category, but there are thousands of other individuals on Wikipedia who would never be found in Britannica (professional athletes, porn actors, etc, aside from major stars). --Honorius
• Delete, voting on the guy, not the rank. I don't think people are notable based on rank, but based on achievement. Generals are more likely to be notable because they have the power to do very notable things, like Patton, Longstreet, Ike, and many others. They all did something, This guy rose in the ranks, put together a nice resume, but did nothing, as far as I can tell, to impact the world. -R. fiend 03:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'd say that any general, or equivalent, has far more notability, and place in an encyclopedia, than many MLB or NFL players, all of whom seem eligable for their own article. --Icelight 00:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. No one pays $35 for good seats to watch generals do court martials. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 00:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • No, they pay tens of thousands of dollars in taxes to watch those generals on CNN. Sammy Sosa I can understand, but I doubt anyone other than their imediate family paid to specifically see some third string defensive tackle warm a bench. Just trying to keep things in perspective. --Icelight 16:38, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
      • That's almost exactly my point. Have you seen this general on CNN? No. This gentleman is not Norman Schwartzkopf, who is the equivalent of Sammy Sosa in your reckoning. This guy is the 3rd-stringer. Even with your logic, Icelight, he's non-notable. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • My point is not that he's wildly notable. It's there are vigoursly defended policies on creating and keeping articles for those very 3rd string athletes I mentioned. I won't make a WP:POINT by nominating the lot (and there are hundreds of one-two sentence stubs on the most minor NASCAR drivers and semi-pro golfers, etc...) but that to be consistent, we should include this man as well, as he has clearly had a much larger influence in the world, simply by being in command of so many men, irregardless of any exceptional notability. --Icelight 18:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
        • But what has he done with his command? As far as I can tell from the article he's never sent his men into battle, and anything short of that is going to be pretty minor. Peacetime soldiers have a hard time attaining notability, which is probably why many seem a bit over eager for war. -R. fiend 18:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • A Division (military) has between 10,000 and 20,000 troops, I think a CEO of a corporation employing that many people would be considered notable enough to rate an article. There are a lot of articles in wikipedia about people who aren't on TV often. That isn't a good indicator of notablility, unless you do nothing but watch TV.--Rogerd 19:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Haven't seen any good reasons to delete in this discussion. Can we not just stick to nominating someone's aunt and leave verifiable figures of wider interest alone? Grace Note 07:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After watching this discussion for some time, Icelight has persuaded me to join in with my vote. Hall Monitor 17:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:39, 5 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.