358:: per Tom's comment. I feel that this article needs some work on, but there are elements that indicate that the subject is notable. I would like to see more before a decision is made. There is a discrepancy, I think, though that needs to be addressed (I have put my concerns on the article's talk page, along with an extra source that might be added). A search on Google books finds a number of hits, although in many regards these may well be passing mentions (I am unable to tell as I don't have full access to the source). —
470:
rare award (1 of 23), recieved a brevet promotion in the Marine Corps (the army abused them heavily but the Marine Corps granted less than 200 of them in about 100 years, achieved the rank of general, was the son of the
Commandant of the Marine Corps, became the Quartermaster general, modified the Marine enlisted sword (which is the oldest weapon in continuous use in the US military), probably some more stuff I don't know yet, should be notable.--
597:
as a source. Third I used
Military times hall of honor and home of heroes as my first to refs, but when I created the article I even said will expand later in the edit summery and I still intend too. Lastly, I don't think Tony was criticizing you per say but simply stating that when an article is recommended for deletion, a little research should be applied (doing a google search at least) would be reasonable and not just looking. --
341:
rather notable for his time period. Because of this I would recommend a that the afd should be closed early pending a more thorough look into the history of the officer in question and his service roles. This may be a notable military officer cleverly disguised as a non-notable officer, and I believe that we owe it to ourselves to allow time for more info to be located and added before judging the article's notability.
631:
sources shows subject's standing inside the corps was significant (one of twelve colonels, all directly under the major general commandant). I do agree with DGG that the nepotism issue should get coverage in the article, but as a Navy brat myself, I see family tradition as acting as a cohesive more than corrosive force in
American military history. I say the page needs sources, not deletion.
257:
230:
enemy"--some of the other awards at the time were specifically listed as "conspicuous conduct in battle" (He later received as DSM for being courageous enough to visit the front line troups while he was serving as QM during WWI) Finally, the only part of the article which is not quotes of the formal citations is a literal copyvio of
649:
command in logistics, like ordnance or quartermaster stations. Such officers might eventually find themselves at the top of field command, and yet not see actual combat (coastal artillery, nuclear weaponry, submarine service, military prisons). Such service is equally necessary as actual combat, even in wartime, IMHO.
211:. I only recently created this article and have more info to add to it. I also created articles for many of the other recipients of this award and I will be filling in data for them as well. Additionally, he was a Brigadier General when he retired which I think puts him into the Notibility category.--
340:
Most people are not aware of this, but the four stars representing the four different types of
Generals in the United States did not become the norm until after World War II. For a very long time, the highest grade of General in the United States was a two-star, which would make this one star general
581:
If you wish to criticise the nominator here (me) you would do better on the grounds of failing to do a reasonable search in Google News rather than for lack of expertise. Examining Google News now appears to show a number of new sources that may resolve any doubts for notability. This AFD was raised
596:
Umm, google news is your first problem, try google books or hitting the library. this guy has been dead for about 90 years so news probably ain't gonna show much. Second, the references haven't changes recently so anything thats there now was likely there last week, if not its probably using google
452:
we do not have precedent that most generals are notable. Many of them have indeed done notable things, & I have argued myself that Major
Generals and higher can be presumed to do so. It depends somewhat on the role. It is relatively difficult to be notable in the military as a quartermaster.
469:
Yes perhaps individually these things wouldn't amount to much but when combining them I think we can reasonably call this person notable. I understand that we don't need to have every PFC or
Sergeant with an article or even every recipient of a purple heart but I think that someone who received a
274:
I also wanted to add here that at the time of the award of the Marine Corps Brevet Medal only one other award that could be received and that was the Medal of Honor which officers where not eligible for in the beginning. The Navy Cross wasn't created for several decades after the Brevet medal was
255:
So your telling me that the recipients of an extremely rare award, whether equal to the Navy Cross or otherwise is not notible. It may not be notable to you but it would be to someone in the Marine Corps or a military history reader. And how is that a copyvio, it is the citation of a US governemt
648:
I'd meant to add a word against judging a senior officer's military service solely by experience in combat or by medals for valor. Often I see stories where a staff officer impresses others with competence, then finds himself posted to a billet in D.C. (like this subject), West Point, or notable
630:
have applied rather arbitrary, limited benchmarks (Google News search and military rank, respectively) as deletion arguments, and neither seems to be applicable or useful to this case. Several editors have commented above that Google books produces lots of RS, and examination of several revealed
437:
Just wanted to note that under additional sources and Any
Biography he meets creria 1 and 2. I also find it rather odd that knowhere on this pages does it mention military personnel (we have some longstanding determinations that state that Medal of Honor recipients, Victoria Cross recipients and
621:
seems to indicate less than two years before the US entry into World War I, as corps quartermaster and colonel, subject was the third-ranking officer in the peace-time USMC, behind the commandant and the adjutant. The source seems to suggest in
September 1915, the USMC had zero brigadiers, only
229:
We have consistently held that
Brigadier Generals are not necessarily notable. The Home of Heros site states that Brevet medals were officially considered the equivalent of the Navy Cross. He received the medal for serving as Quartermaster during the Invasion of Cuba "in the presence of the
484:
Also, just to poke a little fun at the serious nature that this notability guideline frequently becomes and this conversation, here is a little article that not only made it past notibility but achiecved featured status. Not quite a bio, but clearly blurs the lines of
438:
several others as well as most general officers are notible) it seems like a good place to mention that. I was tempted to add it but rather than instigate a potential
Conflict of interest I did not but I will leave a note on the talk page requesting someone do it. --
203::This is not a memorial page and I am not duplicating the Hall of Honor articles, although I think there is some valid argument to creating articles about many of them. This person was 1 of only 23 Marines EVER to received the
155:
550:, This nomination clearly reflects the lack of military knowledge that some people have. It is important that nominators read and investigate the subjects of the articles properly before posting the articles for AfD.
256:
military award and whether displayed on the military times site or not it is not subject to copyright. Additionally, it is in quotes and referencing the military times site. I can give you a
116:
149:
316:
582:
after reviewing the sources given in the article rather than searching for additional ones, depending on the "Hall of Valor" was a possible oversight on my part.—
83:
78:
87:
186:
Memorial page has not addressed notability. I am not sure of the value of duplicating every entry in the "Hall of Valor" to Knowledge (XXG).
70:
486:
567:
Please comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Given the article's weak sourcing it seems to have been a reasonable AfD to me.
17:
170:
137:
396:
The sourcing is fairly weak, with the refs providing little information about this person, but I think that he just meets
675:
36:
231:
131:
379:
as the subject was a brigadier-general and recipient of the Marine Corps Brevet Medal, among other things. Cheers,
363:
327:
658:
640:
606:
591:
576:
559:
542:
521:
498:
479:
464:
447:
430:
417:: as mentioned the article needs work. Other users above have established that it at least comes close to meeting
409:
388:
367:
350:
331:
300:
284:
269:
248:
220:
195:
52:
204:
127:
674:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
207:(it was a Medal awarded to Marine Corps officers who received brevet promotions but where not eligible for the
74:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
384:
177:
555:
426:
359:
323:
512:
While the article does need a wider variety of sources, GBooks appears to indicate they are available.
517:
346:
163:
66:
58:
618:
380:
143:
654:
636:
602:
551:
538:
494:
475:
443:
422:
280:
265:
216:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
572:
405:
418:
397:
376:
533:, recipients of which are notable by virtue of this award. Notable, verifiable, etc. —
513:
342:
208:
587:
460:
296:
244:
191:
650:
632:
598:
534:
490:
471:
439:
276:
261:
212:
49:
104:
568:
401:
530:
289:
I go by the sources. (The citations themselves are PD, not the first rest).
627:
623:
583:
455:
291:
239:
187:
237:
a ¨US gov source. An interesting example of nepotism, but not notable.
668:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
421:
so lets give the bloke a chance to get the article up to speed.
375:- the article does need some work, but I do believe it meets
111:
100:
96:
92:
162:
176:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
678:). No further edits should be made to this page.
317:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
311:
315:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
622:colonels. By my reading both
659:13:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
641:12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
607:10:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
592:08:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
577:08:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
53:14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
695:
560:03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
543:02:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
522:04:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
499:20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
480:20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
465:20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
448:16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
431:13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
410:11:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
389:06:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
368:05:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
351:03:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
332:03:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
301:20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
285:13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
270:01:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
249:01:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
221:15:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
196:15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
205:Marine Corps Brevet Medal
671:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
619:This reliable source
67:Charles L. McCawley
59:Charles L. McCawley
258:military reference
44:The result was
334:
320:
686:
673:
529:— equivalent to
360:AustralianRupert
324:AustralianRupert
321:
181:
180:
166:
114:
108:
90:
34:
694:
693:
689:
688:
687:
685:
684:
683:
682:
676:deletion review
669:
552:Tony the Marine
123:
110:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
692:
690:
681:
680:
664:
663:
662:
661:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
579:
545:
524:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
450:
434:
433:
412:
394:Very weak keep
391:
370:
353:
335:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
252:
251:
209:Medal of Honor
184:
183:
120:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
691:
679:
677:
672:
666:
665:
660:
656:
652:
647:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
629:
625:
620:
617:
614:
608:
604:
600:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
525:
523:
519:
515:
511:
508:
507:
500:
496:
492:
488:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
457:
451:
449:
445:
441:
436:
435:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
390:
386:
382:
381:Abraham, B.S.
378:
374:
371:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
352:
348:
344:
339:
336:
333:
329:
325:
318:
314:
310:
309:
302:
298:
294:
293:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
250:
246:
242:
241:
236:
232:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
197:
193:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
118:
113:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
670:
667:
645:
615:
564:
547:
526:
509:
454:
423:Anotherclown
414:
393:
372:
355:
337:
312:
290:
238:
234:
226:
200:
199:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
548:Speedy keep
275:created. --
233:, which is
150:free images
531:Navy Cross
487:notibality
514:Edward321
343:TomStar81
628:User:DGG
624:User:Ash
117:View log
651:BusterD
646:Comment
633:BusterD
599:Kumioko
565:Comment
535:ERcheck
491:Kumioko
489:. :-)--
472:Kumioko
440:Kumioko
338:Comment
277:Kumioko
262:Kumioko
213:Kumioko
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
50:Spartaz
569:Nick-D
419:WP:BIO
402:Nick-D
398:WP:BIO
377:WP:BIO
227:Delete
128:Google
112:delete
88:delete
171:JSTOR
132:books
115:) – (
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
655:talk
637:talk
626:and
616:Keep
603:talk
588:talk
573:talk
556:talk
539:talk
527:Keep
518:talk
510:Keep
495:talk
476:talk
461:talk
444:talk
427:talk
415:Keep
406:talk
385:talk
373:Keep
364:talk
356:Keep
347:Talk
328:talk
313:Note
297:talk
281:talk
266:talk
260:. --
245:talk
217:talk
201:Keep
192:talk
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
584:Ash
456:DGG
292:DGG
240:DGG
235:not
188:Ash
178:TWL
657:)
639:)
605:)
590:)
575:)
558:)
541:)
520:)
497:)
478:)
463:)
446:)
429:)
408:)
400:.
387:)
366:)
349:)
330:)
319:.
299:)
283:)
268:)
247:)
219:)
194:)
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
653:(
635:(
601:(
586:(
571:(
554:(
537:(
516:(
493:(
474:(
459:(
442:(
425:(
404:(
383:(
362:(
345:(
326:(
322:—
295:(
279:(
264:(
243:(
215:(
190:(
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
109:(
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.