Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Owen Honors

2516:

made and addressed by superiors but immediately after they were made public in the same news cycle as DADT, and considering that the admirals who presided over the original complaint judged it not worthy of official sanction at the time and later gave him command , is adding to the growing perception that this is entirely political in nature (ya think?). When you combine this event with the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for similarly indiscreet/embarrassing speech it connects into the whole cultural phenomenon of political correctness and its pervasiveness even in places it might arguably not belong like the military during war ( Honors really should be linked to ), which then connects into the Ground Zero Mosque, Islam and the whole discussion of imbalance when again, it comes to political correctness and tolerance... this all makes the Captain more than just a one-trick-pony, even if he is one tiny gear in a very big clock. And, in the larger sense of Knowledge (XXG) as a whole, I came here looking for info on Captain Honors. I wanted his career info to cite for a comment on another site, and I automatically Googled "owen honors wiki" in order to get his Knowledge (XXG) page as the first hit. I always add "wiki" to my search terms to get here, for the (mostly) reliably comprehensive compilation of information and the links to outside sources. Isn't that what we want, what the ideal is, for Knowledge (XXG) to get as close as it can to being the mythical Storehouse Of All Human Knowledge, to be the go-to guy for information? Our policies should default to a position of inclusion of articles by definition. If the noteworthiness policy disqualifies Captain Honors but not Puck from The Real World, then that policy needs some tweaking. Thanks!

1514:, we should generally avoid having an article on them." (My emphasis) But he hasn't only been covered in the context of this incident. The article already cites coverage from before the video incident made the news. Probably a lot more could be dug up too. I'm sure there was coverage when he took command of the Enterprise. Also, he wasn't a "low-profile individual" even before the scandal broke. He was the commander of one of the most famous ships in the world - with a crew of over five thousand - more than a lot of towns. BLP1E was designed so that obscure people who happened to have a brief brush with fame wouldn't have articles written about them that would then have to be closely monitored (so as not to violate BLP standards) long after they faded back into obscurity. But that clearly is not the case here. We have an already noteworthy person who become more notorious as a result of this incident. - 1138:

shows our values, what is consider allowed and forbidden. While a part of society is going towards openness and criticism (The Simpsons, American's Dad, etc), this is strongly forbidden in specific social contexts. It also has implications for the recruits, for instance I know I would want to go to the army if I knew I would find a place where one could have friends and good humor. Firing this guy sends an important message to all those recruits out there: if you're in the navy, laughing or criticizing in not allowed! So keep this here. It is a very important sign of our way of seeing the world and where we're going to. For all of this to make sense it is important to know that the person in question was competent and had an impeccable record, so this entry is important.

2754:

which I am not) followed guidelines closer to my own intuitions. I found that some article deletions that I considered erroneous (as in I did a search for information only to find the relevant article had once existed) were carried out by only a few folk. This, along with work in article creation and ease of deletion (and learning curve for wiki proficiency), leads to the rather strong claim that if you are primarily "A Deleter!" I probably disagree with you. My apologies for both the unwikiness the earlier and now this post. Wrong time, wrong place. Ya'll got to be my first. I am now reading up all this cool WP stuff which should help me when I freak next time; I still only want to be a reader.

410:, and I may be wrong, is that leading a large group confers notability only in combat. Honors commanded the 6th Fleet, and later the USS Enterprise, in non-combat deployments. It's not clear if planes from the carrier have flown combat sorties in Afghanistan since he took over in May 2010, but my understanding is that the Afghan combatants are not armed with significant anti-aircraft capabilities anyway. If so, the subject would not meet MILPEOPLE #6. I don't see any other criteria there which he'd meet either. Perhaps someone from the Military project could clarify that. As for GNG, his coverage in mainstream media has been almost totally due to this one event. 3006:, but it's a borderline case, as he did have a fairly distinguished career before the recent video controversy. However, I accept the argument that his military career wouldn't be enough to make him notable by itself; as significant a post as captain of an aircraft carrier is, we don't have articles on the rest of them unless they went on to a higher post beyond that. If we wouldn't have had an article on him before, we shouldn't have an article on him due to one event, therefore delete. 1985:

carries no, or at least shouldn't carry any, official weight. What is clear to me is that editors and closing admins do give at least some weight to secondary notability guidelines (or what they perceive to be a SNG, in this case). If this were not the case, there would be little need for us to post more than "fails GNG" or "passes GNG". Although our assessment differs, I think we are in agreement that the subject's notability should be determined by GNG, BIO, and BLP1E.

1397:; he was the captain of one of the most well-known ships in the world and is involved in an incident that has received international coverage. Given the amount of detail that is available regarding his military career prior to the scandal and the significance of his role in the scandal, I think Knowledge (XXG) would best be served by keeping this article in his name rather than redirect to 670:" essay argument, as this is the EXAMPLE used in the notability guideline. Surely this case is more important than the Steve Bartman incident (a baseball scandal), because this incident, on the advent of gays being allowed to openly serve, shows the bias of some of those highest in the military and the issues the bias they still have to overcome. 1196:, "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." The nine "in particular" categories that follow are simply demonstrations of how an individual will "almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify." It does not say that the individual 591:. Far too much of the RUMORED content of the videos has not been established. Said to contain homosexual slurs? Okay, but not proven....only non-attributed testimonial quotes to that effect. Wait until the content of the videos is fully established and verified by multiple first-person journalistic review before posting ANY of this. 2877:"I'd say Williams isn't notable in any enduring sense, based on what's happened in the last few days. If he gets a career then he'd probably become notable. However, since I refer to Page Views below I'll point out that Williams's article has received three times as many views as this article in only half the time. 907:? The Honor entry seems rather well written and researched to me, and certainly is noteworthy. We also have no way of knowing what long ranging effects this will have on the US Navy and their command structure vis a vis his Captain and other higher-ups knowing of the video yet not taking action sooner. 2515:

Forgive my poor editing skills :) Not only does the ever-increasing coverage make Captain Honors noteworthy, but the level of support shown by former shipmates has been almost unwaveringly positive. That, along with the growing questioning of the timing of this punishment, years after the videos were

2193:

Article has significant coverage in reputable third party sources. Being an aircraft carrier commander may not be notable. However, being the cause of a major scandal on the largest aircraft carrier in the world would be notable. This event has received substantial coverage for the media. He received

1959:

Let's avoid name-calling. Location, you're harping on the wrong point. Whether MILPEOPLE or not is a valid notability guide is irrelevant, because it's not the only cited argument for keeping or deleting. Whether MILPEOPLE is met or not is irrelevant because GNG, BIO, and BLP1E aren't met either, and

1066:

Sixth is well below second, the highest-ranking honor that brings notability, and then only if given repeatedly. Many officers command capital ships during times of relative peace and have uneventful tours of duty. It doesn't make them notable. Merely commanding a ship, however large, does not convey

945:

is a project essay and really has no relevance for an AfD. It's not part of our notability guidelines. In my view, this article is precluded by BLP1E because Honors wouldn't otherwise be notable. If the event is demonstrated to have an enduring effect, perhaps an article on the "event" can be created

639:

is an essay, "This advice is not a formal Knowledge (XXG) policy or guideline, though it may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion or when considering creating a standalone article." even then this essay states: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received

180:

The subject is the commander of an American aircraft carrier who recently received media attention when some "inappropriate" videos he made a couple of years ago became public. News coverage today says he has been relieved of command and will likely face some disciplinary measures, effectively ending

2753:

Sorry, for the personal attack bit. The article is useful in an encyclopedic way. I fundamentally disagree with this and a few other deletions. There must be some basic difference either in my use of encyclopedias or in how the deleters see wiki. I had the idea that wiki "content-adders/revisers"(of

1893:

is that one is a specialized sub-guideline that has the support of community consensus whereas the other is only an essay that does not have the same support. The distinction of having community consensus or not is an important one. The fact that SOLDIER was not promoted to guideline-status suggests

646:

is probably one of the most abused AFD argument and misunderstood guideline. "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person

2928:

Aside from the international attention (all sourced and in the article) regarding the naval investigation currently, he has been mentioned in the LA Daily News (previous jet crash) and quoted by Newsweek for an article about Russia being unhappy with an American humanitarian action in Georgia. I am

2671:

Lastly, if you are self righteous about any deletion, you are probably not the one who should be instigating or arguing for it. You are too personally involved. I would extend that to people who think of themselves as deleters of wiki. I recon any deleter should spend five time writing or improving

2005:

editor in this AfD cites failing WP:MILPEOPLE as the sole reason to delete the article. At the time of the original post I assumed that it was a fallback/failsafe/2nd tier, whatever damned term you want to use, to GNG. Just as pornbio and athlete are. That assumptino is now wrong, that is fine.

2415:

Over 13,000 people a day are turning to Knowledge (XXG) for this article. I would not dismiss that out of hand as a "Google hits: big number" argument as you do. Likely many of the "Keep" arguments are coming from these readers of the article. When a few months have gone by, only the Wiki regulars

1984:

Who is "harping" on which point, which point is irrelevant, and who is escalating incivility in a brash manner here is a matter of POV. Given how commonly the essay is being used on both sides of the aisle by new and experienced editors, I do not think it is irrelevant to support the point that it

1944:

as a "fallback" when, as an essay, it has no relationship to it as such. It alters the argument in that many editors are using it to recommend "delete" when it actually has no weight as an official guideline. Incidentally, the guy who initially pointed this out to you is on your side of the !vote.

1137:

I think this is an important topic. I saw one of the videos and they were just comical, not aggressive or humiliating. This means that this guy was dumped just because he had a sense of humor and was willing to share it in his work place. Now this is important from a sociological point of view, it

1726:

Also have to ask: what the heck does this guy have to do with DADT? The videos made were long before the repeal of DADT got traction, and the relief seems to stem from the unprofessional nature of the horsing around, rather than anything about homosexuality (media speculation and hyperbole to the

1200:

fall into at least one of those categories; merely that falling into at least one "almost always" indicates that they have "significant coverage". The standard appears to be "significant coverage", and Capt. Honors certainly meets that standard. If the argument is that the event is more important

2905:

They peaked two days ago at 13.6 and the total for the December 7 was just 1.8k. I expect it will continue to drop, with spikes for his departure from the Navy and the discipline of superior officers, if any. Should the subject become more notable in the future there's no reason why the article

1912:

never existed then we would still be left with what is IMO a failure of the general notability guidelines. If the essay were better-received by the community then it could possibly serve as an extra safety net to sustain otherwise GNG-failures like Owen Honors, jut as Athlete sustains athletic

1862:

That's fine, but it doesn't alter the argument. Those specialized, sub-guides are there to provide cover for those that would otherwise miss the GNG; like how we have articles for people who played 1 game of baseball in 1899 even though no reliable source mentions them, because they qualify via

1756:: Every Medal of Honor-winner gets his own article, no matter how insignificant his life was beyond winning that one medal (don't flip out, people, you know how I mean that...) That guy is certainly more significant than many other military officers whose significance is largely undisputed. -- 844:; even if you question the necessity of Capt. Honors' bio (and frankly I think a case could be made for keeping it as well), this event was a bona-fide military scandal which does deserve coverage in Knowledge (XXG). For those of you wondering about the actual content of the videos, 695:? Seriously though, I do think that a number of military personnel that reach this level in their career do deserve at least some mention in an article. It's just a matter of finding proper documentation to reference and some soul that would at least get the ball rollings. -- 2144:, according to Stage, Jeff. "Cicero High, Naval Academy Grad Flies Into Combat Zone: Owen P. Honors is Commander of an F-14 Tomcat Squadron." Syracuse Post-Standard March 21, 2002. on LEXIS NEXIS. It's got additional info about his education, awards, family and classmates. 1960:

even if MILPEOPLE was a guideline, it couldn't override those other three considerations. And in any case, there are people using MILPEOPLE as a keep justification anyway, so your argument about having no official weight works against you in invalidating thier keep !votes.

369:

I am the creator. Just like you are the nominator for deletion. Why would my opinion be worth less? Similarly, in the nomination you state that the article was prodded but removed by creator. The process says anyone can remove the prod tag for, "any reason whatsoever."

327:

He was a senior commander on a carrier, with aircraft capable of nuclear strike, his judgement and character and the interaction between himself and those under his command and naval officers above him and the US political and media establishment is an ongoing issue.

772:

is the guide. My guess is, when the history of DADT is written, historians will think of this as a significant tie-in, but of course no one has enough distance yet to write a real history. What may happen here is that the article is deleted for now, but resurfaces

3036:

04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)" Just because there aren't yet articles about some other aircraft carrier captains doesn't mean that there shouldn't be - as long as there are enough reliable sources to document their career - it just means they haven't been written yet.

647:

should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage." In this case, the minor event and the person are the same. Based on

1247:

is a factor here, and certainly a lot of the other keep votes are either unaware of or blatantly ignoring these policies (argh guys do better!), but a decent amount of coverage discusses how this incident fits into a "changing Navy culture" as

528:. In this case no one was hurt, no chickens were choked, insignificant amounts of money are involved, and the only victim was the subject himself. Hazelwood is more like Rodney King than this subject, who's closer to the Chinese video kid. 1201:

than the person, the article could easily be re-edited and re-named to fit that criteria. Why delete the article and then have to start all over again? Whether treated as an individual or as an event, the subject of the article is notable.

2667:

Overzealous deletion might keep people from contributing, and wiki already suffers with problems of elitism. (I am certainly not saying let poor submitters or poor articles go though, only emphasis should be on improvements not deletion.)

2010:

IMO fails to qualify for an article for other reasons, and others who have weighed in to delete have cited 1E and the GNG such as well. The now-obviously irrelvance of MILPEOPLE does not impact any deletion call in this AfD. Clear?

1506:- The deletionists seem to be pushing things too far here - such that it's become a knee-jerk reaction to try and delete *anything* that's in the news. If you look at what BLP1E actually says: "If reliable sources cover the person 2345:. BLP1E clearly provides for inclusion of articles "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. 1784:

The author of that post understands Honors is not a MoH recipient; if Honors was a MoH recipient then he would automatically have a Knowledge (XXG) article and we would not all be here talking about if Honors deserve an article.

181:

his naval career. Prior to this event he was quoted briefly in the news in his capacity as a task force commander during some naval operations, but there hadn't been any significant coverage otherwise. The subject does not meet

796:. The debate taking place is is over the policy, not the page in question. If you don't like the policy then there are other avenues for making your views heard but keeping an article in violation is not the right course. 488:

Holly Graf has notability beyond that of Honors: first woman to command a destroyer, later the first woman to command a cruiser. So she's has a claim to notability beyond the incidents that lead to her retirement.

2817:

Wasn't he the captain of an aircraft carrier during wartime? Wasn't that aircraft carrier used in any military activities for the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq? Also, do any of his awards/medals make him notable?

2161:

Ample news coverage of the guy. This is a notable event, since how often, if ever, has this sort of thing happened before? The captain of an aircraft carrier gets fired for offensive videos shown to the crew.

2660:

Imagine someone doing a report on gays in the military 20 years from now. Wouldn't it be nice if they could find the contemporaneous issues like Honors? Or Willams and the power of memes in the early internet?

149: 768:. Being relieved as the commander of the world's longest navy ship over a rather dramatic and timely (in the wake of DADT repeal) issue is kind of a big deal; OTOH, I get the sense that he just misses if 2328:

At last count there are currently over 3090 articles discussing this man and the related story. This will be discussed continually in relation to DADT, commanding officers, etc for some time to come. --

1260:

also discusses the incident in the context of other military scandals.) I feel that we can make a reasonably bet that this will be referred to for a while, particularly as DADT repeal is implemented.

1917:

props up T&A tartlets who would otherwise be non-article worthy. If it is largely rejected, fine, then take it out of the conversation. But that doesn't boost his notability otherwise one bit.

1426:. Some things are more than the sum of their parts; while none of his various notable things done may be notable enough in and of themselves, when combined, I believe he's worthy of an article. - 48:. I've read this discussion twice over the last 24 hours, and I can't find any consensus here. Could very well eb worth discussing again in a year's time, but for now, there's no consensus here. 1067:

notability. That's not a judgment on the quality of the men or women, it's just saying that it is a routine activity. WP does not automatically add articles for mayors of small cities either.

730:. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 2860: 524:

There are several differences. The Valdez spill affected thousands of people and countless critters, and resulted in the expenditure of billions of dollars. There's an entire article on the

769: 636: 1845: 1422:

issue; while there is a 'one event' that pushes him over the edge of notability, being an aircraft-carrier captain is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the carrier in question is

2957:

The page views have dropped by half again in the last 24 hours. No, page views do not have anything to do with enduring notability - I'm just rebutting those who've said it does.

2650:. I get annoyed and discouraged people wanting to delete pages. If thousands of people want to read some basic encyclopedic information about a person, why not have a short article. 640:

significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." no one here argues that this owens has not been in "multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources."

1548:- He will be world famous--and/or infamous--for a long time. Also, setting aside this one CO's appearances in the news, I'm surprised there isn't a Knowledge (XXG) article about 1597:. The details surrounding his sacking could be included in the article on the USS Enterprise but that is it. Also I question whether a lot of the sources used in the article are 989:

On one hand, it would seem to me that the commanding officer of a major ship of the fleet is notable enough for an article. Would like to see more biographical details, though.

110: 1310:

This guy is now (through youtube :)) way more popular than some president. I desperately needed information about him. Thanks to Knowledge (XXG) now I know a lot about him.

923:

You are correct. But this means there may be a need for an article on the videos not on Owen Honors. Thats why we have a tailhook article, but no Cpt. Rick Ludwig article.

213: 880:; commanding an aircraft carrier doesn't, on its own, mean he's notable. Being the commander of an aircraft carrier sacked in a blaze of publicity probably means he is. 1570:

What independent, in-depth sources exist to support articles on commanders of this ship? (which is but one of the 12 aircraft carriers the US Navy currently operates).

1054:

The award is sixth in the order of precedence ... pretty high, I think. And like I said earlier, even without that he was the commander of a major ship of the fleet.

243: 143: 2224:. Furthermore the recent events will make defenitive a change in military guideline concerning media and off duty time aboard ships and on bases around the world. 712:

for now. While I concur with Jarkeld's reasoning above, the momentary attention warrants having the article. A year from now this question warrants revisiting. --

2929:

neither a fan nor detractor of the subject, I simply wanted to know more about him. How many separate incidents of sourced media does he require to be notable? --

2535: 965:

He was Captain of the largest warship in the world and his actions have created an international stir. People will be looking up this story for years to come.

1401:

or some other name. I have no objection for creating an article about the scandal if the focus of reports begins to involve other officers under his command.

574:. Notable in relation to recent repeal of DADT as mentioned in several articles about the controversy. Issue made front page of today's Wall Street Journal. 3161:- Other people have said it well enough, and just the amount of interest in this page (and the obvious likelyhood of re-creation) makes it a definite keep. 1394: 2943:

I hope you're not saying that page views are an acceptable measure of notability, or that page views constitute a good argument for or against deletion.

1457:. The incident which led to his sacking could, and should, be covered in the article on the ship. A lot of the above keep votes appear to be variants of 827:

about XO movie night when Cmdr. J.R. Dixon was exec on the Enterprise. Add more about the XO movie night controversy, and less about Honor's bio.

1465:(in that the commander of a large warship is deemed notable in isolation of any assessment of available sources) and aren't based on any policy. 2657:

I certainly see no harm in including people of minor note or short lived fame in the wiki. As far as I can tell it's a boon to human knowledge.

2948: 2654:

I wanted to read about Owen Honors, a navy commander who was in the news for controversial comedic videos. His page also is up for deletion.

2149: 972: 924: 797: 2240: 1717:

and convert to an article about the event as well, if consensus leans toward keeping; but I think it's merely worth a few sentances on the

1223: 1145: 474:

and plenty others. This makes no sense. His actions certainly are relevant and timely to the historical events happening in DC re DADT.

3113: 1389:

refers to "routine news coverage" of a person or event, but the reports involved here most decidedly do not fall under that description.

1317: 1025: 737: 2701: 1264:, Honors's life story is unnecessary; perhaps it could be stripped out and the article renamed to "Owen Honors incident" or something? 1029: 2047: 353: 1249: 17: 2930: 2761: 2693: 2679: 2309: 2113: 1972: 1739: 1175: 1097: 371: 281: 2672:

articles as they do deleting. (If an article really ought not to be included, someone will come along and take care of it later.)

777:

as DADT gets more scholarly treatment. So ... thanks for your work, and be sure to keep a copy in case this gets deleted. - Dank (

2255:

confers notability. I don't see evidence that the ship was under fire during this officer's command. Does anyone know for sure?

1531:- The circumstances of Captain Honors's firing have made international headlines. He's now a highly notable U.S. Navy officer. -- 384:

No offense. It's customary to identify the article creator in AfDs. It just let's other editors know who you are in the debate.

2944: 2145: 1273: 83: 78: 1085:

A Legion of Merit or two is typical for a senior officer, staff or command. There is no inherent notability there for an O-6.

667: 2709:

Your entry, once we get past the slander and personal attacks against other editors, can be best summed up as a delving into

87: 425:

Correction: Honors commanded the 6th Fleet's command vessel. A fleet would be commanded by a flag officer, not a captain.

1647:, therefore I agree with previously made arguments that relevant information should be placed in the article regarding his 2358: 863: 366:

I believe 71.110.x.x is the same editor who created the article, which is nicely written aside from the notability issue.

329: 164: 2458:

What you would do regarding using google hits as a plea for notability is pretty irrelevant, as that line of argument is

1458: 1257: 546: 2137: 1933: 131: 70: 3185: 1770:

I will assume good faith for a moment and ask if you simply misread the article? Owen Honors is not an MoH recipient.

36: 2985:. No one outside of the Navy ever heard of him before he made his video and no one will remember him a year from now. 2349:" Clearly the coverage of Capt. Honors in the news is highly persistent, and will likely be so for quite some time. -- 1664: 852:. Please note that I am not commenting about my own opinion of what happened here, only that it deserves coverage. -- 849: 2347:

The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

2902:

I suggest anyone who thinks that this is a subject with enduring notability should look at the article's Page Views.

2141: 1040:

mentions: "well known or significant award or honor". The Legion of Merit doesn't seem to fall into that category.

824: 1561: 976: 928: 801: 816: 3184:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2856: 2206: 1431: 1227: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2736: 2732: 2236: 1149: 1321: 1021: 741: 274:

this article. I come to wikipedia to get basic facts. This guy is news worthy and I want to know who he is.

125: 3142:. If this guy didn't make the controversial videos, no one would be clamoring to write an article on him. 2051: 1648: 1398: 1290: 2934: 2765: 2757: 2697: 2683: 2675: 2228: 2043: 1823: 1313: 1141: 968: 733: 597: 375: 334: 285: 277: 3166: 1660: 1606: 675: 663: 652: 525: 357: 352:. He previously commanded the 6th fleet and currently is the captain of the world's largest naval vessel. 3144: 3135: 3118: 3079: 3068: 2710: 2278: 2232: 2217: 1710: 1636: 1450: 1193: 942: 551: 407: 349: 299: 182: 2964: 2913: 2886: 2307: 2262: 2111: 1970: 1853: 1737: 1373: 1334:

If Honors is not notable, then neither are all the American Idol contestants and Survivor contestants.

1173: 1095: 1074: 1017: 1005: 951: 633:

nominator continues to talk about news coverage...then says article does not meet notability guidelines.

535: 432: 417: 391: 256: 226: 196: 121: 3201: 3170: 3151: 3125: 3091: 3046: 3015: 2994: 2982: 2952: 2938: 2919: 2892: 2872: 2841: 2807: 2769: 2748: 2726: 2687: 2640: 2617: 2600: 2572: 2550: 2525: 2499: 2471: 2453: 2425: 2410: 2396: 2363: 2337: 2316: 2290: 2268: 2246: 2208: 2185: 2153: 2120: 2086: 2055: 2020: 1994: 1979: 1954: 1903: 1876: 1857: 1839: 1794: 1779: 1765: 1746: 1693: 1668: 1627: 1610: 1594: 1579: 1565: 1540: 1523: 1496: 1474: 1454: 1437: 1410: 1377: 1360: 1343: 1325: 1302: 1277: 1231: 1210: 1182: 1153: 1129: 1104: 1080: 1061: 1049: 1012: 996: 980: 955: 932: 916: 889: 868: 836: 805: 782: 760: 721: 704: 679: 621: 601: 583: 558: 541: 519: 501: 483: 461: 438: 397: 379: 361: 338: 319: 289: 262: 232: 202: 189:" bio. FYI, the article was prodded immediately after creation, but that was removed by the creator. 52: 2627:

is apparently a largely discarded essay. Do you have an opinion as to whether this person meets the

2592: 612:

What rumored content are you referring to? The videos are posted online - nothing rumored about them.

3106: 3087: 2990: 1557: 1368:

He was the commanding officer of a capital ship, that makes him noteworthy even without the incident.

2783: 2624: 2517: 2281:

is a largely rejected/ignored essay, so whether this person passes or fails it is pretty much moot.

1937: 1914: 1909: 1890: 1886: 1864: 1827: 1815: 1811: 1786: 1702: 1681: 1652: 1462: 1386: 1352: 1244: 1160: 820: 688: 648: 643: 592: 453: 3042: 2521: 2329: 2199: 1790: 1536: 1519: 1427: 1356: 1339: 1269: 1058: 1009: 993: 912: 515: 457: 171: 157: 2714: 2476:

What does this haev to do with Google? You click history for the article, then click page views.

1037: 3011: 2800: 2744: 2613: 2568: 2373:

This is what people come to Knowledge (XXG) to see. To seek out information that interest them.

2333: 1990: 1950: 1899: 1761: 1492: 1406: 1206: 1036:

WP:MILPEOPLE, while an essay, only mentions the MOH and the DSF, Navy Cross and Air Force Cross.

885: 3139: 3071:, and this has been discussed long enough. Can someone hurry up and make their mind up already? 3003: 2787: 2581: 2459: 2195: 1819: 1706: 1677: 1644: 1590: 1419: 1390: 1240: 307: 2063:

85.1.192.213 has made no other post ever. I forget the template that automatically says that.

3162: 2546: 2355: 1689: 1602: 1125: 1045: 756: 700: 671: 617: 579: 497: 315: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3033: 2959: 2908: 2881: 2868: 2819: 2477: 2431: 2421: 2374: 2299: 2257: 2163: 2103: 2064: 1962: 1882: 1849: 1729: 1623: 1575: 1470: 1369: 1298: 1165: 1087: 1069: 947: 900: 832: 717: 692: 530: 507: 490: 449: 427: 412: 386: 251: 221: 191: 74: 3025: 2852: 2628: 2589: 2585: 1941: 1844:

WP:SOLDIER is nothing more than guff, actually. It's a project essay that even the project

1807: 1446: 303: 3143: 3117: 3083: 2986: 2878: 1484: 1393:

is a guideline that does give wiggle room for articles like these in that Honors is not a

845: 550: 479: 49: 1598: 1253: 1219: 793: 651:

guidelines, would the nominator agree to close this AFD and redirect this article to the

186: 137: 1867:. Honors passes neither the general nor the specific, as unused/unwanted as it may be. 3038: 2722: 2636: 2608:. Meets the spirit of WP:SOLDIER. An important command involved in an important event. 2467: 2406: 2286: 2016: 1922: 1872: 1835: 1775: 1532: 1515: 1335: 1265: 1055: 990: 908: 778: 511: 1640: 3007: 2794: 2740: 2609: 2564: 1986: 1946: 1895: 1757: 1488: 1402: 1202: 881: 659: 510:

of Exxon Valdez infamy? That disaster was his only real noteworthy "accomplishment".

691:

Deleters, they don't have much of a leg to stand on. Perhaps we should also delete

2542: 2351: 2221: 2095: 1908:

No, it does not alter it one bit, and you are spectacularly missing the point. If

1685: 1121: 1041: 904: 854: 752: 696: 613: 575: 311: 1512:

if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual

104: 2864: 2563:

is notable, not the person involved. That is what the article should be about.

2417: 1619: 1571: 1466: 1294: 828: 713: 66: 58: 2430:

Yeah, it always easier to delete something with fewer people around to notice.

2595: 475: 471: 2903: 2371: 2718: 2632: 2463: 2402: 2282: 2012: 1918: 1868: 1831: 1771: 3032:

We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –

3212: 448:

Honors was not the 6th Fleet commander; that position was and is held by

185:

or the general notability guidelines, and this appears to be a classic "

2194:

little coverage before, but still did receive some. He qualifies under

2133: 1826:

name-drops, "keep its in the news!", and such. An IP editor brings up

452:. The Newsweek article on which this assertion was based is incorrect. 2401:

Essentially a "google hit" argument, which is discounted out of hand.

2370:

It's gotten over 30 thousand hits in its first few days of existence!

1006:

http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/enterprise/Documents/CaptHonors.pdf

3202:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/05/national/main7215425.shtml

2664:

Let's mellow wiki editors. Work instead on expanding and improving.

2297:

Even if it weren't being rejected, he would fail MILPEOPLE anyway.

1822:

scenario. The calls to keep are largely without merit, resting on

1556:. The office alone makes individual articles entirely worthy. -- 823:

was not limited Captain Honors' tenure as XO on the ship. See the

1293:

entry. Obviously not notable for anything beyond this incident.

3178:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1656: 3056: 2861:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer)

1806:- Without the current video mess, he does not pass either the 946:

at a later time but there is no evidence of that right now. --

770:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history/Notability guide

637:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history/Notability guide

3102:: The article under discussion here has been flagged for 3052: 1885:'s point does alter the argument. The difference between 658:

The example in the guideline itself states "For example,

751:, as the scandal is more important then the individual. 3213:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Political_correctness#Criticism

2790:; relevant details about Honors can be covered there. 1351:

The Honor story is within the context of larger events

899:- Why should this Wiki entry be any different than the 100: 96: 92: 1830:

criteria #6, but that specifically notes "in combat".

1713:. I might be willing to consider Edison's proposal to 156: 2717:, which are not a valid reason to retain an article. 2132:

FWIW, not much I expect, in 2002 he was commander of

506:

Ok, then riddle me this...why do we have a Wiki for

470:. If this guy deserves to be deleted, then so does 170: 1894:that editors find it to be flawed in some manner. 1589:- passing notability only due to single event per 2731:Whereas you can muster persuasive arguments like 1814:fallback. With the mess, we're just at a simple 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3188:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3051:Actually, you're wrong, there is an article on 310:(no significant coverage before the incident). 1848:. I hope the closing admin recognises that. -- 214:list of Military-related deletion discussions 8: 2580:The article has become a dumping ground for 2251:#6 specifies that commanding a capital ship 1250:gay people will soon be able to serve openly 1004:He is the recipient of the Legion of Merit. 2416:will participate if there is a second AFD. 244:list of People-related deletion discussions 3098: 2530: 348:I have to disagree and state he does meet 238: 208: 2536:list of News-related deletion discussions 1846:refused to try to promomte as a guideline 1701:: classis lack of lasting notability per 549:is generally not a convincing argument. 3024:Your argument here strikes me as rather 2534:: This debate has been included in the 1239:, after consideration. I recognize that 242:: This debate has been included in the 212:: This debate has been included in the 3194: 3028:, similar to the example they give: "* 1593:and fails the notability guidelines in 2851:at the risk of being accused of using 2216:The article does meet requirement for 1655:. Perhaps we should also look at CAPT 1510:in the context of a single event, and 3002:- I think this is probably a case of 1721:article, under the "history" section. 1483:isn't notable, where does that leave 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2588:violations and has been reported at 2277:As I have been told, it seems that 3059:, if you wanna get picky about it. 1928:And you are spectacularly missing 1680:. Also fails criteria laid out by 1163:comment than an actual rationale. 668:Knowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists 24: 1120:Story and the man are noteworthy. 2855:, is this guy less notable than 2220:line 6 by reason was command of 1676:notable for only one event, per 1418:- as noted, this isn't really a 1159:This seems rather more like an 1289:whatever is relevant with the 1008:That alone makes him notable. 825:2007 Stars and Stripes article 1: 3078:- enough coverage to qualify 3171:10:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC) 3152:15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 3126:15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 3092:00:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 3047:02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 2138:USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) 1618:This person is notable. -- 1497:01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 559:15:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 53:00:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC) 3016:23:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2995:13:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2953:19:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2939:17:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2920:08:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2893:08:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2873:06:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2842:03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2808:19:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2770:21:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC) 2749:16:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2727:14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2688:06:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2641:14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2618:04:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2601:21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2573:19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2551:18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2526:12:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2500:23:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2472:14:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2454:05:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 2426:20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2411:14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2397:07:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2364:05:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2338:03:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2317:14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2291:14:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2269:01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2247:01:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2209:00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2186:22:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 2154:20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 2121:14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 2087:23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 2056:19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 2021:15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 1995:05:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 1980:14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC) 1955:22:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1936:. You attempted to justify 1904:21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1877:18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1858:17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1840:17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1795:20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1780:17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1766:16:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1747:16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1694:14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1669:14:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1628:13:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1611:10:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1580:09:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1566:09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1541:08:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1524:08:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1475:07:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1438:07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1411:07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1378:04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1361:04:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1344:04:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1326:03:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1303:03:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1278:03:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1232:01:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1211:00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1183:16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1154:00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1130:22:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 1105:16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1081:11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 1062:23:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 1050:23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 1013:22:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 997:21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 981:21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 956:21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 933:22:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 917:21:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 890:21:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 869:22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 837:20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 806:20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 783:20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 761:19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 722:18:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 705:18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 680:16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 622:14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 602:14:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 584:13:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 542:11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 520:04:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 502:16:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 484:12:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 462:21:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 439:11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 398:11:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 380:17:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 362:07:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 339:19:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC) 320:05:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 306:. He currently falls under 290:05:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 263:04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 233:04:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 203:04:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC) 3231: 2142:Operation Enduring Freedom 1552:commanding officer of the 817:XO movie night controversy 792:this falls squarely under 3067:He meets the criteria of 2906:couldn't be recreated. 903:? Or for that matter the 819:. The notability of the 3181:Please do not modify it. 2857:Ted Williams (announcer) 1254:new fields open to women 330:Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm 32:Please do not modify it. 3114:Article Rescue Squadron 1399:USS Enterprise (CVN-65) 1291:USS Enterprise (CVN-65) 1479:But if commanding the 1395:low-profile individual 842:Agree with above entry 664:Steve Bartman incident 526:Exxon Valdez oil spill 2702:few or no other edits 2559:- Per WP:EVENT. The 1030:few or no other edits 2704:outside this topic. 1635:- CAPT Honors fails 1032:outside this topic. 653:Owen Honors incident 1940:'s relationship to 1459:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 547:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1639:and only acheives 1633:Delete & Merge 687:As typical of the 666:". This is NOT a " 450:VADM Bruce Clingan 44:The result was 3128: 2760:comment added by 2705: 2678:comment added by 2599: 2553: 2539: 2314: 2245: 2231:comment added by 2118: 2091:I think you mean 2046:comment added by 1977: 1744: 1661:RightCowLeftCoast 1316:comment added by 1180: 1144:comment added by 1102: 1033: 971:comment added by 776: 736:comment added by 494: 280:comment added by 265: 247: 235: 217: 3222: 3215: 3210: 3204: 3199: 3183: 3149: 3148: 3123: 3122: 3111: 3105: 2967: 2962: 2916: 2911: 2889: 2884: 2838: 2835: 2832: 2829: 2826: 2823: 2806: 2803: 2797: 2772: 2691: 2690: 2598: 2540: 2496: 2493: 2490: 2487: 2484: 2481: 2450: 2447: 2444: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2362: 2315: 2306: 2302: 2265: 2260: 2244: 2225: 2204: 2182: 2179: 2176: 2173: 2170: 2167: 2119: 2110: 2106: 2100: 2094: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2058: 1978: 1969: 1965: 1913:GNG-failures or 1745: 1736: 1732: 1434: 1328: 1181: 1172: 1168: 1156: 1103: 1094: 1090: 1077: 1072: 1015: 983: 901:Tailhook scandal 857: 774: 745: 693:Salvatore Giunta 605: 556: 555: 538: 533: 508:Joseph Hazelwood 492: 435: 430: 420: 415: 394: 389: 342: 292: 259: 254: 248: 229: 224: 218: 199: 194: 175: 174: 160: 108: 90: 34: 3230: 3229: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3211: 3207: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3186:deletion review 3179: 3146: 3120: 3109: 3103: 2965: 2960: 2914: 2909: 2887: 2882: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2827: 2824: 2821: 2801: 2795: 2791: 2755: 2673: 2557:Move and rename 2494: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2482: 2479: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2439: 2436: 2433: 2391: 2388: 2385: 2382: 2379: 2376: 2361: 2350: 2312: 2305: 2300: 2263: 2258: 2226: 2200: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2171: 2168: 2165: 2116: 2109: 2104: 2098: 2092: 2081: 2078: 2075: 2072: 2069: 2066: 2041: 1975: 1968: 1963: 1742: 1735: 1730: 1558:AmbassadorShras 1485:Jean-Luc Picard 1436: 1432: 1311: 1192:. According to 1178: 1171: 1166: 1139: 1100: 1093: 1088: 1075: 1070: 973:198.181.161.250 966: 925:207.216.253.134 867: 855: 846:Huffington Post 798:207.216.253.134 731: 595: 553: 536: 531: 433: 428: 418: 413: 392: 387: 332: 275: 257: 252: 227: 222: 197: 192: 117: 81: 65: 62: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3228: 3226: 3217: 3216: 3205: 3193: 3191: 3190: 3174: 3173: 3155: 3154: 3129: 3095: 3094: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3019: 3018: 2997: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2941: 2923: 2922: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2845: 2844: 2811: 2810: 2784:XO movie night 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2751: 2737:WP:Not notable 2733:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2652: 2651: 2644: 2643: 2621: 2620: 2603: 2575: 2554: 2528: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2456: 2367: 2366: 2354: 2340: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2310: 2294: 2293: 2272: 2271: 2233:173.216.205.10 2211: 2202:Alpha Quadrant 2188: 2156: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2114: 2060: 2059: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1973: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1750: 1749: 1740: 1723: 1722: 1696: 1671: 1630: 1613: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1543: 1526: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1440: 1430: 1428:The Bushranger 1413: 1380: 1363: 1346: 1329: 1305: 1280: 1234: 1224:203.97.106.191 1213: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1176: 1146:93.102.138.128 1132: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1098: 999: 984: 959: 958: 936: 935: 920: 919: 893: 892: 874: 873: 872: 871: 861: 821:XO movie night 809: 808: 786: 785: 763: 746: 724: 707: 682: 657: 656: 642: 641: 635: 634: 627: 626: 625: 624: 607: 606: 600:comment added 586: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 464: 443: 442: 441: 423: 406:My reading of 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 343: 337:comment added 322: 298:Does not meet 293: 267: 266: 236: 178: 177: 114: 61: 56: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3227: 3214: 3209: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3195: 3189: 3187: 3182: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3150: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3130: 3127: 3124: 3115: 3108: 3101: 3097: 3096: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3070: 3058: 3055:, and even a 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2998: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2969: 2968: 2963: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2921: 2918: 2917: 2912: 2904: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2890: 2885: 2879: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2816: 2813: 2812: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2798: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2778: 2777: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2752: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2677: 2669: 2665: 2662: 2658: 2655: 2649: 2646: 2645: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2604: 2602: 2597: 2593: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2576: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2514: 2511: 2501: 2498: 2497: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2394: 2372: 2369: 2368: 2365: 2360: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2344: 2341: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2324: 2318: 2313: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2266: 2261: 2254: 2253:during combat 2250: 2249: 2248: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2203: 2197: 2192: 2189: 2187: 2184: 2183: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2122: 2117: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2097: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2036: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2009: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1976: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1802: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1734: 1733: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1705:, as well as 1704: 1700: 1697: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1672: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1631: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1527: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1441: 1439: 1435: 1433:One ping only 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1381: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1364: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1347: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318:174.20.36.112 1315: 1309: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1136: 1133: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1106: 1101: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1073: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1018:User:mfaul123 1014: 1011: 1007: 1003: 1000: 998: 995: 992: 988: 985: 982: 978: 974: 970: 964: 961: 960: 957: 953: 949: 944: 941: 938: 937: 934: 930: 926: 922: 921: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 898: 895: 894: 891: 887: 883: 879: 876: 875: 870: 866: 865: 859: 858: 851: 847: 843: 840: 839: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 811: 810: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 788: 787: 784: 780: 771: 767: 764: 762: 758: 754: 750: 747: 743: 739: 738:64.201.187.90 735: 729: 725: 723: 719: 715: 711: 708: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 683: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 662:redirects to 661: 660:Steve Bartman 654: 650: 645: 638: 632: 629: 628: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610: 609: 608: 603: 599: 594: 590: 587: 585: 581: 577: 573: 570: 560: 557: 548: 545: 544: 543: 540: 539: 534: 527: 523: 522: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 504: 503: 499: 495: 487: 486: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 444: 440: 437: 436: 431: 424: 422: 421: 416: 409: 405: 399: 396: 395: 390: 383: 382: 381: 377: 373: 368: 367: 365: 364: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 344: 340: 336: 331: 326: 323: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 294: 291: 287: 283: 279: 273: 272:do not delete 269: 268: 264: 261: 260: 255: 245: 241: 237: 234: 231: 230: 225: 215: 211: 207: 206: 205: 204: 201: 200: 195: 188: 184: 173: 169: 166: 163: 159: 155: 151: 148: 145: 142: 139: 136: 133: 130: 127: 123: 120: 119:Find sources: 115: 112: 106: 102: 98: 94: 89: 85: 80: 76: 72: 68: 64: 63: 60: 57: 55: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3208: 3197: 3180: 3177: 3163:LarsHolmberg 3158: 3136:WP:MILPEOPLE 3131: 3099: 3080:WP:MILPEOPLE 3075: 3069:WP:MILPEOPLE 3066: 3029: 2999: 2978: 2958: 2945:Шизомби (Sz) 2907: 2899: 2880: 2848: 2820: 2814: 2792: 2779: 2711:WP:ITSUSEFUL 2670: 2666: 2663: 2659: 2656: 2653: 2647: 2605: 2577: 2560: 2556: 2531: 2512: 2478: 2432: 2375: 2346: 2342: 2325: 2298: 2279:WP:MILPEOPLE 2256: 2252: 2227:— Preceding 2222:capital ship 2218:WP:MILPEOPLE 2213: 2201: 2190: 2164: 2158: 2146:Шизомби (Sz) 2129: 2102: 2065: 2048:85.1.192.213 2038: 2007: 2002: 1961: 1929: 1803: 1753: 1728: 1718: 1714: 1711:WP:MILPEOPLE 1698: 1673: 1637:WP:MILPEOPLE 1632: 1615: 1603:Anotherclown 1586: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1528: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1480: 1451:WP:MILPEOPLE 1442: 1423: 1415: 1382: 1365: 1348: 1331: 1307: 1286: 1282: 1261: 1258:This article 1236: 1215: 1197: 1194:WP:MILPEOPLE 1189: 1164: 1134: 1117: 1086: 1068: 1001: 986: 962: 943:WP:MILPEOPLE 939: 905:Exxon Valdez 896: 877: 862: 853: 841: 815:but move to 812: 789: 779:push to talk 775:in some form 765: 748: 727: 709: 684: 672:Adamtheclown 630: 588: 571: 529: 467: 445: 426: 411: 408:WP:MILPEOPLE 385: 354:71.110.71.74 350:WP:MILPEOPLE 345: 324: 300:WP:MILPEOPLE 295: 271: 250: 239: 220: 209: 190: 183:WP:MILPEOPLE 179: 167: 161: 153: 146: 140: 134: 128: 118: 46:no consensus 45: 43: 31: 28: 3034:GetRidOfIt! 3000:Weak Delete 2983:WP:ONEEVENT 2961:Will Beback 2931:71.110.65.2 2910:Will Beback 2883:Will Beback 2793:RJaguar3 | 2762:66.93.220.9 2756:—Preceding 2700:) has made 2694:66.93.220.9 2680:66.93.220.9 2674:—Preceding 2301:bahamut0013 2259:Will Beback 2140:as part of 2105:bahamut0013 2042:—Preceding 1964:bahamut0013 1883:Mkativerata 1850:Mkativerata 1731:bahamut0013 1727:contrary). 1595:WP:MILMOS/N 1546:Strong Keep 1529:Strong Keep 1455:WP:ONEEVENT 1370:XavierGreen 1349:Strong Keep 1312:—Preceding 1167:bahamut0013 1140:—Preceding 1135:strong Keep 1089:bahamut0013 1071:Will Beback 1028:) has made 967:—Preceding 948:Mkativerata 732:—Preceding 631:strong keep 596:—Preceding 532:Will Beback 429:Will Beback 414:Will Beback 388:Will Beback 372:71.110.65.2 333:—Preceding 282:66.93.220.9 276:—Preceding 253:Will Beback 223:Will Beback 193:Will Beback 144:free images 67:Owen Honors 59:Owen Honors 3084:KVIKountry 2987:TomCat4680 2625:WP:SOLDIER 2001:Location, 1938:WP:SOLDIER 1915:WP:PORNBIO 1910:WP:SOLDIER 1891:WP:SOLDIER 1887:WP:ATHLETE 1881:Actually, 1865:WP:ATHLETE 1828:WP:SOLDIER 1816:WP:NOTNEWS 1812:WP:SOLDIER 1719:Enterprise 1703:WP:NOTNEWS 1682:WP:SOLDIER 1657:Holly Graf 1653:WP:NOTNEWS 1554:Enterprise 1481:Enterprise 1463:WP:ILIKEIT 1424:Enterprise 1387:WP:NOTNEWS 1245:WP:NOTNEWS 1161:WP:ILIKEIT 689:WP:ONEVENT 649:WP:ONEVENT 644:WP:ONEVENT 472:Holly Graf 50:Courcelles 3039:Helvetica 2859:? (see 2715:WP:NOHARM 2543:• Gene93k 2518:Cowcharge 1787:Granite07 1645:one event 1601:as well. 1533:Evans1982 1516:Helvetica 1353:Granite07 1336:Logophile 1266:Roscelese 1038:WP:ANYBIO 987:Weak keep 909:Sector001 794:one event 593:Astrobill 512:Sector001 454:Quickfoot 187:one event 3140:WP:BLP1E 3134:- Fails 3008:Robofish 3004:WP:BLP1E 2815:Question 2788:WP:BLP1E 2758:unsigned 2741:Hawkeye7 2676:unsigned 2610:Hawkeye7 2582:WP:SYNTH 2565:Blueboar 2330:Bouspret 2241:contribs 2229:unsigned 2196:WP:BLP1E 2044:unsigned 1987:Location 1947:Location 1896:Location 1820:WP:BLP1E 1758:Imladros 1707:WP:BLP1E 1678:WP:BLP1E 1599:reliable 1591:WP:BLP1E 1489:Hawkeye7 1420:WP:BLP1E 1403:Location 1391:WP:BLP1E 1314:unsigned 1274:contribs 1256:, etc. ( 1241:WP:BLP1E 1218:classic 1203:MishaPan 1142:unsigned 1026:contribs 969:unsigned 882:The Land 864:contribs 734:unsigned 308:WP:BLP1E 278:unsigned 111:View log 3112:by the 2900:Comment 2849:Comment 2578:Comment 2561:scandal 2460:invalid 2352:RoninBK 2136:on the 2134:VFA-211 2130:Comment 2006:Honors 1932:point, 1810:or the 1686:Hekerui 1649:command 1262:However 1122:Tlatseg 1056:Blueboy 1042:Jarkeld 991:Blueboy 856:Eastlaw 848:has it 766:No idea 753:GoodDay 726:PLEASE 697:Hourick 614:Rillian 598:undated 576:Rillian 491:Jarkeld 466:I vote 335:undated 312:Jarkeld 270:Please 150:WP refs 138:scholar 84:protect 79:history 3145:Snotty 3132:Delete 3119:Snotty 3107:rescue 3030:Delete 3026:WP:OSE 2979:Delete 2865:rogerd 2853:WP:OSE 2629:WP:GNG 2586:WP:BLP 2418:Edison 2039:Delete 1942:WP:GNG 1808:WP:GNG 1804:Delete 1699:Delete 1674:Delete 1651:; See 1620:rogerd 1587:Delete 1572:Nick-D 1467:Nick-D 1447:WP:BIO 1445:fails 1443:Delete 1295:JCO312 1283:Delete 1216:Delete 940:Delete 829:Edison 790:Delete 749:Delete 714:ke4roh 589:Delete 552:Snotty 446:Delete 304:WP:GNG 296:Delete 122:Google 88:delete 2837:Focus 2739:. :) 2596:Dr.K. 2495:Focus 2449:Focus 2392:Focus 2311:deeds 2181:Focus 2115:deeds 2082:Focus 2008:still 1974:deeds 1741:deeds 1550:every 1487:? ;) 1287:merge 1220:WP:1E 1177:deeds 1099:deeds 476:LP-mn 165:JSTOR 126:books 105:views 97:watch 93:links 16:< 3167:talk 3159:Keep 3147:Wong 3138:and 3121:Wong 3100:Note 3088:talk 3076:Keep 3043:talk 3012:talk 2991:talk 2981:per 2966:talk 2949:talk 2935:talk 2915:talk 2888:talk 2869:talk 2863:) -- 2786:per 2780:Move 2766:talk 2745:talk 2735:and 2723:talk 2719:Tarc 2713:and 2698:talk 2684:talk 2648:Keep 2637:talk 2633:Tarc 2614:talk 2606:Keep 2584:and 2569:talk 2547:talk 2532:Note 2522:talk 2513:KEEP 2468:talk 2464:Tarc 2422:talk 2407:talk 2403:Tarc 2343:Keep 2334:talk 2326:Keep 2287:talk 2283:Tarc 2264:talk 2237:talk 2214:Keep 2191:Keep 2159:Keep 2150:talk 2052:talk 2017:talk 2013:Tarc 1991:talk 1951:talk 1923:talk 1919:Tarc 1900:talk 1889:and 1873:talk 1869:Tarc 1854:talk 1836:talk 1832:Tarc 1818:and 1791:talk 1776:talk 1772:Tarc 1762:talk 1754:Keep 1715:move 1709:and 1690:talk 1665:talk 1643:per 1641:WP:N 1624:talk 1616:Keep 1607:talk 1576:talk 1562:talk 1537:talk 1520:talk 1508:only 1504:Keep 1493:talk 1471:talk 1461:and 1453:and 1416:Keep 1407:talk 1383:Keep 1374:talk 1366:Keep 1357:talk 1340:talk 1332:Keep 1322:talk 1308:Keep 1299:talk 1270:talk 1237:Keep 1228:talk 1207:talk 1198:must 1190:Keep 1150:talk 1126:talk 1118:Keep 1076:talk 1046:talk 1022:talk 1010:Mike 1002:Keep 977:talk 963:Keep 952:talk 929:talk 913:talk 897:Keep 886:talk 878:Keep 850:here 833:talk 813:Keep 802:talk 757:talk 742:talk 728:KEEP 718:talk 710:Keep 701:talk 685:Keep 676:talk 618:talk 580:talk 572:Keep 554:Wong 537:talk 516:talk 498:Talk 493:.alt 480:talk 468:keep 458:talk 434:talk 419:talk 393:talk 376:talk 358:talk 346:Keep 325:Keep 316:talk 302:and 286:talk 258:talk 240:Note 228:talk 210:Note 198:talk 158:FENS 132:news 101:logs 75:talk 71:edit 3116:. 3057:why 2782:to 2590:ORN 2541:-- 2101:?? 2096:spa 1934:Pot 1285:or 249:— 219:— 172:TWL 109:– ( 3169:) 3110:}} 3104:{{ 3090:) 3082:. 3045:) 3014:) 2993:) 2951:) 2937:) 2871:) 2799:| 2768:) 2747:) 2725:) 2692:— 2686:) 2639:) 2631:? 2616:) 2594:. 2571:) 2549:) 2538:. 2524:) 2470:) 2462:. 2424:) 2409:) 2336:) 2289:) 2243:) 2239:• 2198:. 2152:) 2099:}} 2093:{{ 2054:) 2019:) 2003:no 1993:) 1953:) 1930:my 1925:) 1902:) 1875:) 1856:) 1838:) 1793:) 1778:) 1764:) 1692:) 1684:. 1667:) 1659:-- 1626:) 1609:) 1578:) 1564:) 1539:) 1522:) 1495:) 1473:) 1449:, 1409:) 1385:. 1376:) 1359:) 1342:) 1324:) 1301:) 1276:) 1272:⋅ 1252:, 1230:) 1222:. 1209:) 1152:) 1128:) 1059:96 1048:) 1024:• 1016:— 994:96 979:) 954:) 931:) 915:) 888:) 860:⁄ 835:) 804:) 781:) 759:) 744:) 720:) 703:) 678:) 620:) 582:) 518:) 500:) 482:) 460:) 378:) 370:-- 360:) 318:) 288:) 246:. 216:. 152:) 103:| 99:| 95:| 91:| 86:| 82:| 77:| 73:| 3165:( 3086:( 3053:Y 3041:( 3037:- 3010:( 2989:( 2947:( 2933:( 2867:( 2834:m 2831:a 2828:e 2825:r 2822:D 2802:t 2796:u 2764:( 2743:( 2721:( 2696:( 2682:( 2635:( 2612:( 2567:( 2545:( 2520:( 2492:m 2489:a 2486:e 2483:r 2480:D 2466:( 2446:m 2443:a 2440:e 2437:r 2434:D 2420:( 2405:( 2389:m 2386:a 2383:e 2380:r 2377:D 2359:C 2356:T 2332:( 2285:( 2235:( 2178:m 2175:a 2172:e 2169:r 2166:D 2148:( 2079:m 2076:a 2073:e 2070:r 2067:D 2050:( 2037:' 2015:( 1989:( 1949:( 1921:( 1898:( 1871:( 1852:( 1834:( 1789:( 1774:( 1760:( 1688:( 1663:( 1622:( 1605:( 1574:( 1560:( 1535:( 1518:( 1491:( 1469:( 1405:( 1372:( 1355:( 1338:( 1320:( 1297:( 1268:( 1243:/ 1226:( 1205:( 1148:( 1124:( 1044:( 1020:( 975:( 950:( 927:( 911:( 884:( 831:( 800:( 755:( 740:( 716:( 699:( 674:( 655:? 616:( 604:. 578:( 514:( 496:( 478:( 456:( 374:( 356:( 341:. 314:( 284:( 176:) 168:· 162:· 154:· 147:· 141:· 135:· 129:· 124:( 116:( 113:) 107:) 69:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Owen Honors - Knowledge (XXG)

Index