85:. SNGs do not trump GNG. Every Knowledge article needs to pass GNG. SNGs are simply a shortcut that presumes that sources exist to satisfy GNG when a topic satisfies the SNG. Therefore, since no Keep voter successfully refuted the argument that the subject fails GNG, this individual is not eligible for a standalone article. However, that doesn't mean that Knowledge can't have information about this individual in other articles. Feel free to merge any info from the revision history of this article into the list article.
31:
774:, I agree that most of these people really don't have enough coverage for a stand-alone article (and I've created several similar ones). 40% of MOHs were given out in the ACW, by the way. I don't think there's any way this AfD can generate consensus on its own to delete a recipient of the most prestigious personal military decoration in the United States. That's a clear pass of
745:...) which means the burden of proof lies with editors opting for Knowledge-inclusion. For my better understanding, is the reverse psychology applicable here? Meaning, do Knowledge guidelines require evidence for non-notability? In essence, Knowledge-inclusion has to be justified, Knowledge-exclusion does not, if the litmus test fails. Cheers and more best wishes
979:." The basic criteria of WP:BIO starts with "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The question is therefore all about significant coverage in multiple and reliable sources! Cheers
707:
are opinions, nothing more. Anyone can write an essay on notability. People can consider them, but they do not override guidelines or policies. Often editors confuse this or try and state that something is notable and must be kept because it meets an essay, when it is not notable based on guidelines.
876:
Would you care to clarify when the MOH criteria was changed? AFAIK the only major time the criteria was changed was in 1917, and they reviewed all Medals of Honor to that point, so it's incorrect to state that an ACW MOH is not the same as one awarded after. Also, NSOLDIER says nothing about this so
974:
I want to second what
Timothy is saying. WP:GNG supersedes WP:SOLDIER, which is only an essay. Additionally, WP:ANYBIO starts with saying "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be
852:: As is stated above, the Medal of Honor during the Civil War is not the same as the Medal of Honor we know today. The criteria was completely changed. Keep votes based on this have a misunderstanding of the NSOLDIER essay and the history of the Medal of Honor.
435:
Yes, but when they revised the guidelines, they chose to strike almost 1/3 of the medals that had been awarded after considering all that had been awarded during the war. While most of those cancelled were mistakenly awarded to the
233:
473:
939:. In this case there is not sufficient coverage as there would be for later recipients because the award does not have the same meaning post-revision. This is obvious from the content of the article.
547:
526:
82:
778:#1 if you're looking for a guideline behind this. An RfC is the appropriate place to decide whether to merge/redirect these stubby articles to the list of ACW MOH recipients or keep them as is –
194:
325:
368:: It's worth noting that criteria for receiving the Medal of Honor has significantly changed since the Civil War. While it technically might meet the wording of the NSOLDIER
227:
608:
it. In essence, if the criteria of WP:GNG are not met, the assumptions made in WP:SOLDIER are irrelevant and the article is to be deleted. Is that not the case? Cheers
305:
571:. I see that we're moving from trying to get generals deleted (failed) to trying to get recipients of the highest decoration for gallantry deleted. What fun! --
737:
for the thorough explanation. Leaving the fact that WP:SOLDIER is only an essay aside, the presumption of notability can be contested by a kind of litmus test (
345:
285:
40:
141:
919:
when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using BLP sources for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion."
126:
437:
942:
As you admit, the criteria for the Medal was completely revised and what it was during the Civil War is not what it is today. See
Chapter 1,
417:
The MOH was given out to thousands of people who did little of note prior to the revision of the guidelines. He does not appear to pass GNG.
786:
after all. In the absence of a clear consensus on the wider issue, this article should be kept. Deletion is clearly inappropriate. Best,
946:
by Dwight S. Mears (available on JSTOR). It is clear from the description of the medal during the Civil War, it does not meet NSOLDIER.
641:, You are completely correct; a presumption is merely an assumption, not a guarantee that an article is notable. This is true even for
167:
162:
1025:
171:
154:
121:
114:
17:
892:
793:
450:
248:
600:
that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they ... " WP:SOLDIER does not say an individual
215:
135:
131:
877:
it's you misunderstanding the essay, which blanket-applies to all MOH recipients as is currently phrased. Further,
816:
1007:
69:
46:
209:
984:
750:
613:
293:
988:
967:
898:
867:
844:
820:
799:
754:
728:
631:
617:
580:
559:
538:
517:
492:
456:
426:
407:
387:
357:
337:
317:
297:
205:
96:
650:
1003:
961:
861:
812:
722:
682:, that address the subject directly and in depth and are the sources used impacted by something such as
486:
401:
381:
65:
255:
627:
576:
353:
333:
313:
91:
783:
513:
241:
158:
588:
WP:SOLDIER references WP:GNG in the opening sentence where it reads "In general, an individual is
980:
828:
779:
746:
704:
638:
609:
555:
289:
840:
767:
691:
662:
568:
534:
501:
422:
265:
110:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1002:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
956:
878:
856:
775:
738:
734:
717:
675:
481:
396:
376:
221:
623:
572:
349:
329:
309:
269:
86:
832:
687:
658:
509:
150:
102:
1019:
903:
886:
808:
787:
642:
551:
505:
444:
277:
273:
766:. In practice, we have always kept articles on Medal of Honor recipients as passing
649:
where it links to the definition WP uses for presumption, specifically that it is a
836:
742:
695:
679:
666:
530:
418:
188:
683:
654:
646:
469:
468:: Article does not meet notability guidelines. I found sources such as this
944:
The Medal of Honor: The
Evolution of America's Highest Military Decoration
441:
594:
significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources
977:
meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included
392:
Note: I fixed the a broken link in refs so others can see what it says.
622:
A presumption of notability is not a presumption of non-notability. --
708:
Essays are points to consider, not guidelines that should be followed.
883:
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor
440:, the fact is that the board determined Adams' MOH to be worthy (
998:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
653:, that can be shown to be incorrect based on factors such as
474:
West
Virginia and the Civil War: Mountaineers Are Always Free
284:. The article is currently only referenced by a link to the
548:
List_of_American_Civil_War_Medal_of_Honor_recipients:_A–F#A
527:
List_of_American_Civil_War_Medal_of_Honor_recipients:_A–F#A
83:
List of
American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: A–F#A
184:
180:
176:
911:"A person who does not meet these additional criteria
674:
The best test for notability is does the subject meet
240:
703:
It's also important to remember that Essays, such as
326:list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions
504:essay, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS so failing
72:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1010:). No further edits should be made to this page.
927:A presumption is not a guarantee of notability,
344:Note: This discussion has been included in the
324:Note: This discussion has been included in the
304:Note: This discussion has been included in the
909:re: ANYBIO#2, above these criteria it states:
885:) is met, something you have yet to address.
372:, it does not fulfill its intended meaning.
306:list of Military-related deletion discussions
286:United States Army Center of Military History
254:
8:
142:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
346:list of People-related deletion discussions
343:
323:
303:
529:where the appropriate details belong. --
45:For an explanation of the process, see
882:
438:27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment
835:is America's highest military award.
471:. He is mentioned in one sentence in
7:
915:under Knowledge:Notability. Editors
592:to be notable if they have received
282:multiple reliable secondary sources
807:Supporting the views expressed by
500:while the MoH satisfies #1 of the
24:
784:there's nothing wrong with a stub
41:deletion review on 2020 October 1
770:with flying colors, as it were.
127:Introduction to deletion process
29:
917:may find these criteria helpful
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
989:08:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
968:18:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
899:17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
868:16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
845:16:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
821:13:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
800:22:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
755:08:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
729:23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
713:Best wishes from Los Angeles,
632:22:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
618:05:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
581:23:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
560:21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
539:06:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
518:03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
493:17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
457:22:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
427:17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
408:16:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
388:16:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
358:15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
338:15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
318:15:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
298:15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
97:22:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
906:, see below (bolding mine)
117:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1042:
937:have sufficient coverage"
921:"May" does not mean "Is".
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1026:Pages at deletion review
1000:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
975:included; conversely,
933:that individuals will
780:Knowledge is not paper
651:Rebuttable presumption
741:; are there multiple
678:; are there multiple
115:Articles for deletion
913:may still be notable
276:, the article fails
964:
960:
864:
860:
725:
721:
669:, and many others.
645:, per the lead of
544:Merge and redirect
523:Merge and redirect
489:
485:
404:
400:
384:
380:
962:
954:
897:
862:
854:
798:
723:
715:
487:
479:
455:
402:
394:
382:
374:
360:
340:
320:
132:Guide to deletion
122:How to contribute
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1033:
966:
889:
866:
813:Northern Escapee
790:
727:
567:. Clear pass of
491:
447:
406:
386:
280:, in particular
259:
258:
244:
192:
174:
112:
94:
89:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1041:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1008:deletion review
953:
895:
853:
796:
714:
478:
453:
393:
373:
201:
165:
149:
146:
109:
106:
92:
87:
77:The result was
70:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1039:
1037:
1029:
1028:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1012:
994:
993:
992:
991:
972:
971:
970:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
940:
922:
891:
871:
870:
847:
833:Medal of Honor
823:
802:
792:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
711:
709:
701:
699:
672:
670:
635:
634:
583:
562:
541:
520:
495:
462:
461:
460:
459:
449:
430:
429:
412:
411:
410:
362:
361:
341:
321:
262:
261:
198:
151:James F. Adams
145:
144:
139:
129:
124:
107:
105:
103:James F. Adams
100:
75:
74:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1038:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1021:
1011:
1009:
1005:
1001:
996:
995:
990:
986:
982:
981:MisterBee1966
978:
973:
969:
965:
958:
952:
945:
941:
938:
936:
935:almost always
932:
926:
925:
924:re: NSOLDIER
923:
920:
918:
914:
908:
907:
905:
902:
901:
900:
896:
894:
888:
884:
880:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
858:
851:
848:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
827:
824:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
803:
801:
797:
795:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
756:
752:
748:
747:MisterBee1966
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
726:
719:
712:
710:
706:
702:
700:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
671:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:MisterBee1966
637:
636:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
610:MisterBee1966
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:
494:
490:
483:
476:
475:
470:
467:
464:
463:
458:
454:
452:
446:
442:
439:
434:
433:
432:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
409:
405:
398:
391:
390:
389:
385:
378:
371:
367:
364:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
290:MisterBee1966
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
257:
253:
250:
247:
243:
239:
235:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
207:
204:
203:Find sources:
199:
196:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
169:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:
120:
119:
118:
116:
111:
104:
101:
99:
98:
95:
90:
84:
80:
73:
71:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
999:
997:
976:
943:
934:
930:
928:
916:
912:
910:
890:
849:
825:
804:
791:
771:
764:Keep but RfC
763:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
564:
543:
522:
497:
472:
465:
448:
414:
369:
365:
281:
263:
251:
245:
237:
230:
224:
218:
212:
202:
108:
78:
76:
60:
57:
36:
829:WP:NSOLDIER
735:TimothyBlue
705:WP:NSOLDIER
264:Given that
228:free images
88:‑Scottywong
768:WP:SOLDIER
733:Thank you
692:WP:LASTING
663:WP:LASTING
624:Necrothesp
604:, it only
602:is notable
573:Necrothesp
569:WP:SOLDIER
502:WP:SOLDIER
350:Lightburst
330:Lightburst
310:Lightburst
266:WP:SOLDIER
1004:talk page
879:WP:ANYBIO
776:WP:ANYBIO
739:WP:SIGCOV
676:WP:SIGCOV
510:Mztourist
288:website.
66:talk page
1020:Category
1006:or in a
931:presumed
904:Eddie891
887:Eddie891
809:Eddie891
788:Eddie891
598:presumed
596:. It is
590:presumed
552:Nika2020
445:Eddie891
419:★Trekker
272:, not a
270:WP:ESSAY
195:View log
136:glossary
79:redirect
68:or in a
957:Timothy
929:"It is
857:Timothy
850:Comment
837:Wm335td
772:However
718:Timothy
688:WP:WWIN
659:WP:WWIN
606:assumes
586:Comment
531:Lockley
482:Timothy
397:Timothy
377:Timothy
366:Comment
234:WP refs
222:scholar
168:protect
163:history
113:New to
643:WP:GNG
506:WP:GNG
498:Delete
477:p.229
466:Delete
415:Delete
278:WP:GNG
274:WP:SNG
206:Google
172:delete
743:WP:RS
696:WP:1E
694:, or
680:WP:RS
667:WP:1E
370:essay
268:is a
249:JSTOR
210:books
189:views
181:watch
177:links
93:| ||
16:<
985:talk
963:talk
893:Work
881:#1 (
863:talk
841:talk
826:Keep
817:talk
805:Keep
794:Work
782:and
751:talk
724:talk
684:WP:V
655:WP:V
647:WP:N
628:talk
614:talk
577:talk
565:Keep
556:talk
535:talk
514:talk
488:talk
451:Work
423:talk
403:talk
383:talk
354:talk
334:talk
314:talk
294:talk
242:FENS
216:news
185:logs
159:talk
155:edit
959:::
955://
859:::
855://
831:#1
720:::
716://
546:to
525:to
484:::
480://
443:).
399:::
395://
379:::
375://
256:TWL
193:– (
81:to
1022::
987:)
843:)
819:)
811:.
753:)
690:,
686:,
665:,
661:,
657:,
630:)
616:)
579:)
558:)
550:.
537:)
516:)
508:.
425:)
356:)
348:.
336:)
328:.
316:)
308:.
296:)
236:)
187:|
183:|
179:|
175:|
170:|
166:|
161:|
157:|
43:.
983:(
839:(
815:(
749:(
698:.
626:(
612:(
575:(
554:(
533:(
512:(
421:(
352:(
332:(
312:(
292:(
260:)
252:·
246:·
238:·
231:·
225:·
219:·
213:·
208:(
200:(
197:)
191:)
153:(
138:)
134:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.