374:"Extra-ordianry", see notable. I have struck the offending comment, statement still rests. Being reliably sourced does not make you notable. As pointed out above, you can prove practically anyone's existence with loads of reliable sources, that does not mean they should have a Knowledge (XXG) article on them. If you can find a reliable source stating that this man did do something notable in his career (none of the stuff mentioned above please, that's not notable when compared with his peers), then I'd be happy to change to !vote.
299:
747:. That adjective is all too often ignored in these discussions. Davis held a non-notable position, and then was appointed by a non-notable body to a subcommittee of a non-notable committee. This is not encyclopedic: even if Davis qualifies for a Who's Who directory, he doesn't qualify for a Knowledge (XXG) biography.
858:
This is ludicrous bootstrapping. The claim is that he's notable because of a putatively significant mention of him with respect to something that everyone agrees is not notable, to the point that people are complaining that I've pointed out that the subject of the story is a redlink. To repeat for
761:
Writing a sourced article is not slanting a debate. Don't be ridiculous! It's your additions of daft links to the article (such as turning "Committee of 49" into a link — clearly without having read the source that supported that content) that are the attempts to slant the debate, if anything. If
804:
I tagged "decorated" as questionable, because there's no indication that it's a notable decoration. Decorated with what? Millions of soldiers get decorated every year. Army brass have rows and rows of decorations. The fact you can't identify the decoration demonstrates my point that it wasn't a
900:
You say "if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks". "Proper" wikilinks are links to subjects that either have an article or are clearly notable enough to have one. Adding links to subjects that you consider to be unnotable in an attempt to make the unnotability rub off onto
600:
I did not realise the article had been significantly rewritten since I !voted. At that time the article simply stated that he was one of several
Assistant Secretaries of the Army and only had one source, a name check on a government list. I agree that these numerous references from various sources
410:
Actually I believe it's relative, not absolute. Nothing in
Knowledge (XXG) is absolute, it all requires some common sense consideration. If it were absolute that would mean anyone with significant coverage in reliable sources would be totally justified in having an article. Inclusion is actually
395:
The requirement for notability is absolute, not relative. There's no need for any subject to be more notable than its peers. There's no reason why all of these assistant secretaries shouldn't have articles if they all have significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that I haven't said "keep"
198:
828:
Where did anyone say that the subject is notable "because he was appointed to a subcommittee of the
Committee of 49"? This is simply part of the biography of a subject who is notable by virtue of significant coverage in reliable sources. The source for this statement is cited at the end of the
271:
Assistant Secy's of these departments are major policy making positions and therefore notable, even though there is more than one of them. WP covers not just the present, so every person who ever filled any of these positions is appropriate for an article. 22:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
195:
585:
The authors, editors and publishers of the reliable sources cited in the article have decided that this man's achievements deserve attention and to be recorded. That's what we go by in
Knowledge (XXG), not our own subjective judgements.
131:; only reference is from a 53-year-old org chart. NB: There are several Assistant Secretaries of the Army. The first few I checked from the current roster do not have Knowledge (XXG) entries, including Davis's current successor as
447:. You have completely the wrong idea of what Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria actually are. The nominator is quite right to focus on the issue of sources, and you are quite wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto your
564:(or in this case name-checked) does not make you automatically notable. I reiterate; what has this man done that is "worthy of notice, significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".
867:
in a series of sources does not add up to notability. If we delete everything in this article that isn't related to something notable, the article would be empty because this fellow is not notable. We don't have a
926:. Enough sources have been found to show notability. Even without reading them it is clear that several of these are substantially about the subject, as he is referred to in the headlines, so they do amount to
713:
articles. This person's life and works do appear to be a part of the permanent, public, historical record, and it appears to be possible to create a biography of him, because one has been created.
321:
You shouldn't of mentioned the lack of sources in your nom, now people are arguing over that detail. The real argument is; that he was one of several
Assistant Secretaries and hasn't done nothing
774:
article covering the achievements, dated between 50 and 80 years ago, of a person who has been dead for over 40 years, shows that you are grasping at straws now with your edits and arguments.
120:
296:
396:
here, because I haven't seen evidence of notability, but I'm just pointing out that this particular argument for deletion is invalid according to
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines.
218:
Davis, who is a different person. Can you name for me a single Senior Vice
President of Chicago Title and Trust in Knowledge (XXG)? Or, indeed, a Senior Vice President of
243:
413:
We're getting off topic here, and I don't fancy an argument just for the sake of it. I can't see you changing your mind, so it's best to just leave it at; "
731:
The article is substantially better, and about as well-sourced as it could be. Which is why I stand by my delete position. Your edits effectively try to
605:" !votes were made before the rewrite, might I suggest politely notifying those !voters and even the nom, as they maybe inclined to change their !vote.
161:
are part of the
Eisenhower Presidential Library. Having ones' papers archived by a significant library is a pretty clear indicator of notability.--
877:
132:
869:
87:
82:
298:(pay) etc. all from NYT for "Chester R. Davis" (this one is definitely the right person as it is about the bank). 381 googlebooks hits.
91:
17:
74:
464:
651:
This guy doesn't seem to meet the notability standards. He has done nothing notable to stand out from other assistant secretaries.
873:
460:
257:
194:
find a score of (pay) articles in the NYT referencing him including what is likely his obit. Also in WaPo archives search.
175:
No, it just means that the papers are in the library. Lots of non-notable people have papers in presidential libraries.
954:
452:
36:
829:
paragraph, and can be read by consulting the book at a library or by following the ISBN link to Google Books. And are
158:
444:
356:
the important issue. Notability guidelines are about significant coverage in reliable sources, not doing anything "
288:
953:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
939:
914:
889:
853:
821:
783:
756:
726:
704:
681:
668:
are the existence of multiple, independent published works documenting this person's life and works in depth,
660:
621:
595:
580:
555:
533:
476:
433:
405:
390:
369:
344:
310:
262:
231:
209:
184:
170:
148:
56:
700:
665:
456:
440:
276:
935:
910:
849:
770:(as well as in the body of one of the later sources), and that you are arguing about "news" coverage on a
739:
and
Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. The passing mention in a number of sources doesn't add up to the
591:
551:
401:
365:
301:
Chicago
Tribune featured obit. (over 200 hits in CT archives). Headed fund drive for USO. Still notable.
672:
a Knowledge (XXG) editor's subjective opinion of how unique or special this person's achievements were.
78:
791:
860:
809:
794:
and then complain that it's not notable enough to merit a wikilink. One or the other, but not both.
736:
834:
709:
The nominator is wrong. There are at least 14 sources to be had, and yes that includes at least 4
656:
255:
830:
696:
617:
576:
529:
429:
386:
340:
166:
902:
931:
906:
845:
779:
722:
677:
601:
indicate he is notable. Well done on the rewrite THF and Uncle G. I also notice that all the "
587:
547:
472:
397:
361:
306:
205:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
864:
732:
692:
451:
of whether someone is important or famous or unique — a discussion that is irrelevant to our
70:
62:
490:
128:
838:
652:
250:
744:
885:
817:
752:
606:
565:
518:
418:
375:
329:
284:
227:
180:
162:
144:
775:
718:
673:
468:
302:
201:
136:
50:
790:
You can't say that he's notable because he was appointed to a subcommittee of the
108:
560:
You have ignored my above question numerous times. My answer to yours is; being
812:. Just because it's in the local newspaper doesn't mean it's encyclopedic.
417:", it wont matter until were both !voting on an AFD like the one described.
881:
813:
748:
280:
223:
176:
140:
766:, as there are. That you tagged the word "decorated" as questionable,
197:
establishes him as a banker of some power. Active in American Legion
735:; if one adds proper wikilinks, what one sees is a sea of redlinks.
947:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
214:
I don't see Chester R. Davis in the NY Times. I see Chester
859:
the third time, which no one has acknowledged or addressed,
415:
you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe
517:
Neither of you have stated what makes this guy so special?
743:
coverage in multiple, independent sources required for
115:
104:
100:
96:
878:
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management)
801:
a source for the claim. So how can I read the source?
133:
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management)
870:
Category:Vice Presidents of Chicago Title & Trust
542:. It has been shown that the subject of this article
538:
The important words that you seem to be ignoring are
762:the activities of this person were so non-notable,
487:
of whether someone is important or famous or unique
764:there wouldn't be the sources that have noted them
768:when it was in the very title of the source cited
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
957:). No further edits should be made to this page.
483:wrong to attempt to divert the discussion onto
865:Stringing together a series of trivial mentions
515:enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."
244:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
439:Your belief is incorrect. You should read
874:Category:Assistant Secretaries of the Army
200:and a bunch more. Notability established.
901:another subject is a clear violation of
411:validated by consensus (like this AFD).
242:: This debate has been included in the
328:notable when compared with his peers.
222:bank whom we have graced with a page?
139:. No NYT obituary, no Ghits of note.
499:of an article should be notable, or "
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
546:been recorded, so this applies.
453:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
489:" lol. The first paragraph of
1:
876:or even an article about the
940:17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
915:20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
890:20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
854:20:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
822:18:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
784:17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
757:15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
727:15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
705:07:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
682:15:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
661:01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
622:00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
596:23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
581:21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
556:21:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
534:21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
477:14:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
434:06:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
406:00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
391:00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
370:21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
345:01:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
311:23:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
263:20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
232:21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
210:20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
185:20:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
171:20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
149:20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
57:04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
974:
445:User:Uncle G/On notability
441:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
481:Calm down mate, I'm not "
950:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
540:"...or to be recorded"
485:subjective estimation
449:subjective estimation
291:) 2009-01-16 22:57:05
808:And, need I repeat,
835:The Washington Post
805:notable decoration.
352:. Actually sources
831:The New York Times
614:
573:
526:
426:
383:
337:
44:The result was
607:
566:
519:
419:
376:
330:
293:
279:comment added by
265:
247:
965:
952:
733:slant the debate
613:
610:
572:
569:
525:
522:
501:worthy of notice
425:
422:
382:
379:
336:
333:
292:
273:
253:
248:
238:
118:
112:
94:
71:Chester R. Davis
63:Chester R. Davis
53:
34:
973:
972:
968:
967:
966:
964:
963:
962:
961:
955:deletion review
948:
839:Chicago Tribune
792:Committee of 49
611:
608:
570:
567:
523:
520:
423:
420:
380:
377:
334:
331:
274:
260:
251:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
971:
969:
960:
959:
943:
942:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
825:
824:
806:
802:
795:
707:
686:
685:
684:
649:Strong Delete:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
313:
294:
266:
258:
236:
235:
234:
189:
188:
187:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
970:
958:
956:
951:
945:
944:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:
916:
912:
908:
904:
899:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:
836:
832:
827:
826:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
800:
796:
793:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
760:
759:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
706:
702:
698:
697:Abraham, B.S.
694:
690:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
666:Our standards
664:
663:
662:
658:
654:
650:
647:
646:
623:
619:
615:
604:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
516:
514:
510:
506:
503:"; that is, "
502:
498:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
416:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
394:
393:
392:
388:
384:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
327:
325:
320:
318:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
290:
286:
282:
278:
270:
267:
264:
261:
256:
254:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
173:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
949:
946:
932:Phil Bridger
927:
923:
907:Phil Bridger
846:Phil Bridger
844:newspapers?
841:
798:
772:biographical
771:
767:
763:
740:
714:
710:
688:
669:
648:
602:
588:Phil Bridger
561:
548:Phil Bridger
543:
539:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
494:
486:
482:
455:and to AFD.
448:
414:
412:
398:Phil Bridger
362:Phil Bridger
360:-ordinary".
357:
353:
349:
323:
322:
316:
315:
275:— Preceding
268:
239:
219:
215:
191:
154:
137:Peter Kunkel
126:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
928:significant
741:significant
509:interesting
505:significant
930:coverage.
861:WP:NOTNEWS
810:WP:NOTNEWS
737:WP:NOTNEWS
653:WackoJacko
159:His papers
326:-ordinary
252:Raven1977
903:WP:POINT
837:and the
562:recorded
289:contribs
277:unsigned
259:My edits
163:ragesoss
121:View log
776:Uncle G
719:Uncle G
693:WP:Note
674:Uncle G
513:unusual
469:Uncle G
465:Sources
461:Sources
457:Sources
350:Comment
317:Delete:
303:Collect
202:Collect
127:Flunks
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
797:There
691:Fails
689:Delete
603:delete
493:says;
491:WP:BIO
129:WP:BIO
116:delete
92:delete
872:or a
842:local
799:isn't
511:, or
497:topic
495:"The
358:extra
324:extra
319:Keep:
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
936:talk
924:Keep
911:talk
886:talk
850:talk
818:talk
780:talk
753:talk
745:WP:N
723:talk
715:Keep
701:talk
678:talk
657:talk
618:talk
612:4314
609:Ryan
592:talk
577:talk
571:4314
568:Ryan
552:talk
530:talk
524:4314
521:Ryan
473:talk
443:and
430:talk
424:4314
421:Ryan
402:talk
387:talk
381:4314
378:Ryan
366:talk
341:talk
335:4314
332:Ryan
307:talk
285:talk
269:Keep
240:Note
228:talk
206:talk
192:Keep
181:talk
167:talk
155:Keep
145:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
882:THF
880:.
863:.
814:THF
749:THF
711:NYT
670:not
544:has
354:are
281:DGG
249:--
246:.
224:THF
220:any
177:THF
157:.
141:THF
938:)
913:)
905:.
888:)
852:)
833:,
820:)
782:)
755:)
725:)
717:.
703:)
695:.
680:)
659:)
620:)
594:)
579:)
554:)
532:)
507:,
475:)
467:!
463:!
459:!
432:)
404:)
389:)
368:)
343:)
309:)
287:•
230:)
216:C.
208:)
183:)
169:)
147:)
135:,
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
934:(
909:(
884:(
848:(
816:(
778:(
751:(
721:(
699:(
676:(
655:(
616:(
590:(
575:(
550:(
528:(
471:(
428:(
400:(
385:(
364:(
339:(
305:(
283:(
226:(
204:(
179:(
165:(
143:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.