Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaughn L Ward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete — Caknuck 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaughn L Ward

Vaughn L Ward (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

nn bio Cacas123 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete This gentleman appears to have had an admirable career thus far, but I don't see notability per our standards. The closest the article gets is 'assumed command of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion 25th Marines'—but the entire battalion is 750-1000 men, and Charlie is but one of five companies within the battalion, so unless we're missing part of the picture, I don't think this belongs here. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: The relevant results of a Google news search do not turn up anything that would sufficiently meet WP:N. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alas, in none of his professional incarnations has he done anything significant enough to join that minuscule percentage of humanity that is truly notable. Qworty (talk) 07:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, working soldier. Good on him, but accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - CIA, Army, Senate doesn't sound too common, and the article is much better in quality than many that aren't on AfD. nom definitely should provide more info on subjects exact position and role, especially with the senator, to have the article deleted. --.Tom. (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you mean by telling the nom that s/he "should provide more info [. . .] to have the article deleted"? Maralia (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to figure that one out myself. Doesn't make much sense. It sounds like he's trying to say that we need even more information about Ward, and that this additional information will make it obvious how really NON-notable Ward is, and therefore the "weak keep" vote can be changed to the delete that we all know the article deserves. Am I close to the intended meaning here? Qworty (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sad, but I can't see any way to recommend keeping this reasonably comprehensive and well-written article. It just doesn't meet WP:N. Tim Ross·talk 01:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.