Deletion of Owen Honors

Comment: per . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: nominator continues to talk about news coverage...then says article does not meet notability guidelines.Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is an essay, "This advice is not a formal Wikipedia 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 significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources."  no one here argues that  this owens has not been in "multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." 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 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  guidelines, would the nominator agree to close this AFD and redirect this article to the Owen Honors incident?The example in the guideline itself states "For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident". This is NOT a "Wikipedia:Other stuff exists" 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEVENT||WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: 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 little coverage before, but still did receive some. He qualifies under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to XO movie night per ; relevant details about Honors can be covered there.  '''RJaguar3 &#124
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: classis lack of lasting notability per , as well as  and . I might be willing to consider Edison's proposal to '''move''' 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 ''Enterprise'' article, under the "history" section
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: Does not meet  and . He currently falls under  (no significant coverage before the incident
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE||WP:GNG||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: As typical of the  Deleters, they don't have much of a leg to stand on.  Perhaps we should also delete Salvatore Giunta?  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEVENT)

Comment: The article does meet requirement for  line 6 by reason was command of capital ship. 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.   — Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: classic . Special:Contributions/203.97.106.191|203.97.106.191
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:1E)

Comment: WP:NOTNEWS refers to "routine news coverage" of a person or event, but the reports involved here most decidedly do not fall under that description.  is a guideline that does give wiggle room for articles like these in that Honors is not a Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual|low-profile individual; 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 Wikipedia would best be served by keeping this article in his name rather than redirect to USS Enterprise (CVN-65) 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: after consideration. I recognize that / 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 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0105-enterprise-20110104,0,6490253.story gay people will soon be able to serve openly, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40889027/ns/us_news-life/ new fields open to women, etc. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/04/AR2011010400376_2.html This article 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. ''However'', Honors's life story is unnecessary; perhaps it could be stripped out and the article renamed to "Owen Honors incident" or something
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: The article has become a dumping ground for  and  violations and has been reported at |ORN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Are_the_career_details_of_the_superior_officers_of_cpt._Owen_Honors_a_BLP_vio_and_covered_by_.3F
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:BLP||WP:ORN)

Comment: as noted, this isn't really a  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 ''Enterprise''. 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: at the risk of being accused of using , is this guy less notable than Ted Williams (announcer)?   (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE)

Comment: Fails  and .  If this guy didn't make the controversial videos, no one would be clamoring to write an article on him
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Without the current video mess, he does not pass either the  or the  fallback.  With the mess, we're just at a simple  and  scenario.  The calls to keep are largely without merit, resting on  name-drops, "keep its in the news!", and such.  An IP editor brings up  criteria #6, but that specifically notes "in combat
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SOLDIER||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I think this is probably a case of , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: According to , "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 ''must'' 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 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE)

Comment: notable for only one event, per . Also fails criteria laid out by 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I have to disagree and state he does meet . He previously commanded the 6th fleet and currently is the captain of the world's largest naval vessel. Special:Contributions/71.110.71.74|71.110.71.74
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MILPEOPLE)