Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William R. Gruber (2nd nomination)
- 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
William R. Gruber[edit]
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- William R. Gruber (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)
This page was nominated for deletion in 2014. While his rank of Brigadier General satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is only a presumption that "they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources" however that is not the case here and so he fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly notable per WP:SOLDIER, which is generally held as being the standard notability guideline for general officers (despite its status as an essay). Consensus is clearly to keep officers of this rank per that guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Response Consensus changes. WP:COMMONSENSE (which I know you're a big fan of) requires that for a military person to have a page on WP any reader should be able to immediately recognize that s/he won/did/led/commanded/developed/wrote [something militarily notable]. The presumption in WP:SOLDIER is that in reaching flag rank or in that flag rank that person did some notable things(s) which received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. However for many one stars and some two stars that simply isn't the case, they just got promoted without achieving anything that anyone would regard as notable. You clearly believe that just achieving flag rank is inherently notable, I don't if they don't also have SIGCOV in multiple RS.Mztourist (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed I do. I believe that getting to the top of a profession generally makes one inherently notable. After all, we classify sportspeople as inherently notable if they have played in a single top-level game or competed once in a top-level tournament (even if they got nowhere) and pop starlets as inherently notable if they have had a single moderately successful one-hit wonder (even if they subsequently disappeared from anyone's radar). I don't think it's unreasonable to also consider people who have got to the top of professions which are actually useful as inherently notable, even if their professions generate nowhere near so much internet fodder. We don't want Wikipedia to be known only as a repository of pop, internet and social media culture and sports, do we? It's getting far too much that way anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Obviously I disagree. Deflecting by comparing notability criteria in other areas is apples and oranges. I certainly agree that sportspeople who play in a single top-level game/tournament are not notable, however even a one-hit wonder must have sold thousands of copies of a record/download so temporarily playing a part in thousands of people's lives and creating a somewhat enduring legacy, thus achieving a far wider impact than a one-star with no legacy at all who would otherwise be completely forgotten except by those they served with. Getting to the bottom rung of flag rank doesn't make the holder inherently notable if they did nothing notable in getting there and do nothing notable while they're there. Look at Gruber, what did he do? No notable commands, battles, awards, just went for a drive with Eisenhower, that's it. Why do we need pages for that? Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed I do. I believe that getting to the top of a profession generally makes one inherently notable. After all, we classify sportspeople as inherently notable if they have played in a single top-level game or competed once in a top-level tournament (even if they got nowhere) and pop starlets as inherently notable if they have had a single moderately successful one-hit wonder (even if they subsequently disappeared from anyone's radar). I don't think it's unreasonable to also consider people who have got to the top of professions which are actually useful as inherently notable, even if their professions generate nowhere near so much internet fodder. We don't want Wikipedia to be known only as a repository of pop, internet and social media culture and sports, do we? It's getting far too much that way anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Response Consensus changes. WP:COMMONSENSE (which I know you're a big fan of) requires that for a military person to have a page on WP any reader should be able to immediately recognize that s/he won/did/led/commanded/developed/wrote [something militarily notable]. The presumption in WP:SOLDIER is that in reaching flag rank or in that flag rank that person did some notable things(s) which received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. However for many one stars and some two stars that simply isn't the case, they just got promoted without achieving anything that anyone would regard as notable. You clearly believe that just achieving flag rank is inherently notable, I don't if they don't also have SIGCOV in multiple RS.Mztourist (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Necrothesp and because reducing Wikipedia to a collection of stuff that'e easy to find with Gooogle searches is a damfool idea. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
- Weak delete normally I would vote keep for a brigadier general, but he doesn't seem to have done anything notable except have some relationship with Ike, and notability isn't inherited. Also generals.dk isn't a RS, and Trout's mentions of him are in passing, so while he might just meet SOLDIER, he doesn't meet GNG because there isn't significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm interested to see these claims that he didn't do anything except know Eisenhower. Presumably being a general commanding divisional artillery in action is doing nothing. Maybe he would have been better employed playing a single professional game of football or singing a song. Now that would be doing something notable! What on earth is Wikipedia coming to? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- That might have earned him SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, because pop culture = internet dumping. Whereas useful and distinguished career in a non-pop culture field ≠ internet dumping on anywhere near such a scale but equally does not equal lack of notability. Why is this it not blatantly obvious to some editors? As I said, we are in danger of converting WP overwhelmingly into a repository of pop culture if we obsess too much over coverage at the expense of reasoned consideration of notability. That's not why I joined. Is it really why anyone else joined? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is your opinion, others may think that thinly-sourced bios of non-notable low-tier flag officers = internet dumping. Mztourist (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, because pop culture = internet dumping. Whereas useful and distinguished career in a non-pop culture field ≠ internet dumping on anywhere near such a scale but equally does not equal lack of notability. Why is this it not blatantly obvious to some editors? As I said, we are in danger of converting WP overwhelmingly into a repository of pop culture if we obsess too much over coverage at the expense of reasoned consideration of notability. That's not why I joined. Is it really why anyone else joined? -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- That might have earned him SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Has SIGCOV in multiple RS. I quickly found biographical details in Ancell & Miller, and details of his war with the 24th Infantry Division. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Then please provide them or add them to the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: The United States military has, currently, nearly a thousand flag officers on active duty, which is more people than any professional sports league, more than every charting musician in the last year, and so on. (Given that the WWII military was forty times larger, we're talking more generals and admirals than any sports league has ever had players in their entire histories.) That Necrothesp is militantly invested in protecting their articles, each and every one, bless their epauletted little hearts, is apparent. However, having a "useful and distinguished career" not only meets no Wikipedia notability guidelines, but it's the same tiresome WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:ILIKEIT argument which we routinely reject for the aforementioned pop culture articles. The fact on the ground is that for all the spirited Defense Of The Encyclopedia here, what Wikipedia is not is a collection of indiscriminate CVs. These are encyclopedia articles, and if there is nothing significant to say about a subject, the subject does not merit one ... whether he be a 1-star in the army or a 1-star in crooning. SIGCOV is just not met here, and I for one would appreciate less rhetoric and more reliable sourcing. Ravenswing 11:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you think that having a distinguished career doesn't meet notability guidelines then frankly I really don't know why we're bothering continuing with this project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course "having a distinguished career" doesn't meet notability guidelines -- notability criteria on Wikipedia are based on fairly specific criteria that has nothing to do with how "distinguished" someone's career might be subjectively claimed to be (an appellation for which, in the case of this subject, you have not submitted a single piece of supporting evidence). We can, no doubt, come up with any number of scoundrels, timeservers and feather merchants who were among the many thousands of officers to gain a star in WWII. We can also identify many outstanding soldiers and heroes who never did. Would you call their careers "undistinguished" in consequence? That being said, as far as whether you feel like bothering to continue with this project, you are the best judge of your own free time. Ravenswing 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- We need a cutoff point for "inherent" notability. We have decided it is general, flag or air officer rank and their equivalents (just as we have decided that one is notable if one serves in a national or sub-national legislature per WP:POLITICIAN, but not necessarily if one serves on a local council). Those at lower ranks may be notable, but equally may not be; you seem to be suggesting that WP:SOLDIER says they cannot be, but it actually says nothing of the sort. It is irrelevant that some may have been "scoundrels, timeservers and feather merchants". It is a fact that reaching that rank is an indicator of a distinguished career. That's why it appears in WP:SOLDIER, which has been formulated by editors who generally know what they're talking about and has been used for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- We certainly need a cutoff, but just being the lowest flag rank isn't it, they must also have SIGCOV in multiple RS. Thats what WP:SOLDIER says. Mztourist (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Let us consider another point: WP:SOLDIER is an essay. It does not have the validity of black-letter notability criteria, should not be cited as if it did, and absolutely does not overrule legitimate notability criteria such as SIGCOV and the GNG. And beyond that: "It is a fact that reaching that rank is an indicator of a distinguished career." No, that is your opinion. Ravenswing 14:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- We need a cutoff point for "inherent" notability. We have decided it is general, flag or air officer rank and their equivalents (just as we have decided that one is notable if one serves in a national or sub-national legislature per WP:POLITICIAN, but not necessarily if one serves on a local council). Those at lower ranks may be notable, but equally may not be; you seem to be suggesting that WP:SOLDIER says they cannot be, but it actually says nothing of the sort. It is irrelevant that some may have been "scoundrels, timeservers and feather merchants". It is a fact that reaching that rank is an indicator of a distinguished career. That's why it appears in WP:SOLDIER, which has been formulated by editors who generally know what they're talking about and has been used for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Of course "having a distinguished career" doesn't meet notability guidelines -- notability criteria on Wikipedia are based on fairly specific criteria that has nothing to do with how "distinguished" someone's career might be subjectively claimed to be (an appellation for which, in the case of this subject, you have not submitted a single piece of supporting evidence). We can, no doubt, come up with any number of scoundrels, timeservers and feather merchants who were among the many thousands of officers to gain a star in WWII. We can also identify many outstanding soldiers and heroes who never did. Would you call their careers "undistinguished" in consequence? That being said, as far as whether you feel like bothering to continue with this project, you are the best judge of your own free time. Ravenswing 16:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- If you think that having a distinguished career doesn't meet notability guidelines then frankly I really don't know why we're bothering continuing with this project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: WP:NSOLDIER is an essay and in any case a presumption is not a guarantee of notability. In this case he is remembered mostly because of his association with Eisenhower WP:NOTINHERITED. Trout, Steven (May 29, 2012) is just a mention and again because of Ike, none of the others provide WP:SIGCOV and no one has brought up any SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 18:44, 25 August 2020 (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.