Talk:Allan Day

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: The only two articles by reliable, independent sources I can find regarding this subject are this article in the local newspaper the Portage Daily Register and this plainly trivial mention in The Salt Lake Tribune. Even then, the PDR article is an interview, making it primary material. Unfortunately, this article's subject needs much more significant coverage from reliable, independent sources to be patrolled, let alone to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC.

Perhaps I've missed something, but I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article, however, is well-written and could be incubated as a draft in the hopes that yet-undiscovered existing sources can be found or that new reliable, independent material is created which can be used as a source..

TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheTechnician27, flag officers are generally considered notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Military Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: That is an explanatory supplement which: "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." and per WP:CONLEVEL – which is established Wikipedia policy – has "no more status than an essay." This supplemental material itself concedes: "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as Verifiability and Neutral point of view." Furthermore, this was added in this edit by one editor who has ostensibly very little history at AfD that could possibly inform them of this so-called consensus.
Our job as reviewers has us answer the question: "Does the article have 2 or more references to independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic with significant coverage?" Our answer to that question is 100%, categorically "no", and the question of whether or not those sources exist at all may likely be the same. I will therefore mark this article unreviewed on the grounds that its review was made not on actual Wikipedia policy but on supplemental material tantamount to an essay. I hope you'll find the summary of my argument below compelling enough to agree with me on this.
Essentially, this argument fails on five grounds:
  • 1) This page is not actual Wikipedia policy or guidelines and does not purport to be as much.
  • 2) The excerpt cited was added by an apprentice editor with very little real experience at AfD that could possibly inform them of this alleged consensus. Furthermore, given this editor is/had been involved with the US Navy for a long time, this seems more like an arbitrary entry based on a bias toward military service than anything actually based on consensus among AfD discussions.
  • 3) Even if it weren't the case and this were part of actual, agreed-upon Wikipedia notability guidelines, "Generally considered notable" =/= "are always notable".
  • 4) The subject does not pass actual Wikipedia notability guidelines, namely WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.
  • 5) As reviewers, we are required to review based on Wikipedia's actual notability guidelines, not something that one inexperienced editor at AfD seems to have made up one day, put in unofficial supplementary material, and was never challenged on. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechnician27: not something that one inexperienced editor at AfD Does a similar principle apply to patrolling? see Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers#Last 90 days - --John B123 (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: I'm citing actual, agreed-upon Wikipedia policy, which states that this subject unambiguously does not merit their own article, or at most, were we to count this as meeting criterion 1 of WP:ANYBIO, a merge "into a broader article providing context." If you can construct a valid counter-argument rooted not in unofficial supplementary material but in actual inclusion criteria – namely WP:GNG or WP:BASIC – or if you would like to go about changing those guidelines to better suit your argument, I'll not only acquiesce, but gladly mark the article as "reviewed" myself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're that confident then take it to AfD. I've got far better things to do with my time than get into protracted debates over this. --John B123 (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources for expansion and/or notability[edit]

Although nothing in here except the defense.gov press release plausibly contributes to notability (as it details how he received a major award), I'm placing this here while I perform more in-depth WP:BEFORE.

TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allan_Day&oldid=1206897883"