Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Thorburn

John A. Thorburn

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

This individual doesn't appear to meet WP:SOLDIER and no reliable sources are provided to support claims of notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 03:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Subject of article does not meet criteria set forth in WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. However, the subject is the subject of the song which is documented int he article Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story; therefore, I propose that the title be redirected to the article regarding the song, and any referenced material can be merged to that article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is the subject of a movie, a song, and received multiple distinguished flying cross.--v/r - T P 14:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject being awarded multiple DFCs does not mean that the subject passes WP:SOLDIER. The movie and the song maybe notable, but the subject of both may not necessarily be. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The movie is significantly about the subject and is in post-production.--v/r - T P 19:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the movie is notable, but whether the subject of the movie is notable. Sometimes the subject of a movie is not notable, whereas the movie itself is. The subject still needs to pass one or all of the following: WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG, WP:NN. At this point I have not seen any significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. A google search for the Staff Sergeant John A. Thorburn brings up hits from mostly sources that fall under WP:SPS and therefore do not add to possible notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find his military awards to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. WP:N and its subsidiary pages are guidelines, not policies, which are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions". The large number of military honors support making an exception here. Chester Markel (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In creating WP:SOLDIER editors from WikiProject Military History had a significant discussion as to what military awards would constitute well-known and significant award or honor under WP:ANYBIO. And after the lengthy discussion only single (or rarely multiple) awarding of a first-rate military award, or multiple awardings of a second-rate military award, was constituted as meeting aforementioned criteria. Otherwise you would get individuals who would be considered notable for getting a low rate medal, that is relatively insignificant to those is the know.

Therefore, the criteria that must be met is the second part of WP:ANYBIO, or any other part of WP:SOLDIER. From what I have read the subject, minus being the subject of a film and a song, is not independently notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly nothing wrong or invalid about disagreeing with the threshold of WP:MILPEOPLE. While I'm an advocate of that essay and would like to see it restored to guideline status, I do think that the part on awards is too strict. Even though the subject doesn't have specific medals, stating that the overall recognition is sufficient for notability doesn't invalidate his keep rationale, especially noting that there are exceptions to the rules. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]