Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Alexander (Marine)

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. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sam Alexander (Marine)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sam Alexander (Marine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded, with detailed rationale provided on the article's talk page. However, imho, my reasoning for deletion still stands: While brave, simply does not meet notability criteria, as per WP:BIO1E and WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the article, it's notable and I think merging the article be my second offer after keeping the article. But deleting because article notability conditions is not fair partly.Forest90 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
• Keep due to significant non-trivial coverage of the subject in numerous editorially-managed secondary sources. BBC, Independent, Daily Mirror, Telegraph and Times all produced articles in which Alexander is the primary subject. I can't see any possible argument of for deletion based on WP:N or it's focused guidelines regarding people and soldiers. The article is very poorly written and needs to be cleaned up, but that's a subject for it's talk page, not for AfD. -Markeer 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - yes, multiple sourcing, all having to do with the single event in Afghanistan, hence WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Actually the multiple sources are linked to two events in Afghanistan. 1. death of the subject and his officer, where Alexander is primary subject in numerous news articles. 2. 2011 Helmand Province incident, where deaths of Alexander and his officer are referenced extensively in connection with entry. Multiple sources where Alexander was primary subject could also be included that are linked to receiving of military award. That would create two events in Afghanistan (Award and Death) where Alexander is primary subject in numerous sources, and where second is linked to third event, i.e 2011 Helmand Province incident. However, that would require longer entry rather than stub, which might be moot given discussion about deletion based on policy/guidelines interpretation. -Justin Kirby 20:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NSOLDIER is not policy; it's just an essay and so "that's just like, your opinion, man". WP:BIO1E is about whether we should have an article about an event, a participant or both. As there doesn't seem to be a separate article about the event in question, then we should stick with what we have, per the policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2019 (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.