Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert E. Love

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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Love

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

Non notable militate career (highest rank was Colonel), non-notable DoD civilian career (head of subdivision of an agency task force) , ceo of non-notable firm, no significant publications, trivial government awards.

Created by contributor whose edit history shows nothing else, but who understands details of WP syntax... DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would submit that "the second highest award presented by the Secretary of Defense to non-career Federal employees, private citizens, and foreign nationals for contributions, assistance, or support to Department of Defense..." is non-trivial. Further, members of the Senior Executive Service are flag-level (general officer-level) equivalents within the civilian ranks of the federal government. I am open for debate, however.

Although I have not contributed before, I researched publishing requirements, methods and wiki-code fairly extensively in an attempt to present a somewhat compliant article.

Thank you for your feedback.

Lemchuhalik (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 00:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, shame on you DGG for failing to assume good faith and making a vague claim that the creator may be a sock puppet/recreation of a previous user. That has no place at AfD and no bearing on notability. Someone of your experience should know to use the proper channels if you want to make such accusations and should know to stick to relevant issues here.

Now, as far as relevant issues goes, it does not appear that Love is notable. Specifically, only one provided source is about him and that is a press release. The rest either don't mention him at all, are by him, or mention him in passing as a gov't spokesperson. My efforts to find sources didn't turn up anything new for Love or Daedalus Solutions. Thus I must vote delete. Please note, this is not a judgement on Love as a person. His work may well be very notable in the real world definition of the word. It just means it hasn't been noticed by reliable sources and therefore is not possible to write a balanced article on Love. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lemchuhalik. I apologize. Unfortunately, instances like this are the exception. Unlike ThaddeusB, I am very reluctant to go to SPI with no more than this to go on. We have a great deluge of commercial sockpuppettry, and we can deal with it best by removing the articles, than the usual inconclusive result at an SPI--the more intelligent of the actual undeclared paid editors have learned how to evade checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.