Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William J. Ecker

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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Ecker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Unable to locate substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seem to be enough reliable sources around to verify his career (though possibly not much more], and as a rear-admiral, he seems to just about meet WP:SOLDIER. I will leave others either to decide whether this amounts to notability or to find enough more reliable sources to make notability certain. PWilkinson (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have one source: an undated, unsigned biography published by the Coast Guard. "(I)f no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." - SummerPhD (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flag officers are considered notable under WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, (a flag, general or air officer) will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify..." which is great, because we need independent reliable sources: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." We still don't have them. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, by long-standing consensus all general and flag officers are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you have cited states there is a presumption that flag officers will have sufficient third-party coverage to pass. You are saying it does not matter, contrary to that guideline and core policy: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." You'll need to demonstrate a consensus to ignore policy and update the guideline you are claiming is defective. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given that we have no rules and decide these matters by discussion, you're going to have to demonstrate that this chap should be considered less notable than the many others of similar rank who have been kept at AfD simply because they held the rank. Sometimes a convention becomes a de facto consensus, and the general/flag officer notability convention is one of these. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean WP:IAR. Essentially, your argument is that we should ignore policy in favor of your misreading of a guideline because your opinion outweighs the WP:CONSENSUS documented in both the policy and the guideline. That's an interesting interpretation. "Ignore all rules", however, does not mean we do not have rules or that we should ignore them simply because we want to. I might want to create an article about my fifth grade gym teacher, the garage band I play in or a card game I invented. The rules say these subjects are not notable unless "reliable third-party sources can be found". If Ecker is the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, he's notable. If not, "Wikipedia should not have an article on (him)" unless there is some reason to copy the whole pile of unsigned, undated press releases from the Coast Guard that this article's only source seems to have come from. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't have any rules here. I fear that may be your misreading. We have policies and guidelines. We also have essays (one of which I've cited and one of which you have cited above in an attempt to clarify a policy). None of them are rules. What WP:IAR says is: "If a rule [follow the link to see why they're not actually rules] prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Since I consider it to not be improving Wikipedia by deleting an article on such a senior officer, that's exactly what I'm doing. Which guideline is it that I'm supposed to have misread exactly? You're free to disagree with me, but please don't start quoting rules-that-aren't at me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You misread a guideline (WP:SOLDIER) to support your position. When clarified and shown that that misread guideline violated a core policy, you said there was a consensus to that effect. Questioned on that, you've decided to ignore all the rules that aren't rules. To summarize, you feel we should ignore our core policy (WP:V) and include him despite a complete lack of independent reliable coverage, regurgitate the Coast Guard press release (or whatever it is) as an article. Correct? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An odd statement, considering you completely misread WP:SOLDIER as being a guideline. It's an essay, as it clearly states at the top. Yes, that's correct. I'm expressing an opinion based on an essay which is widely-supported by those who write articles in this area (see this AfD, which has just been closed, if you don't believe me), as opposed to robotically regurgitating rules-that-aren't in an attempt to make Wikipedia into some sort of monolithic bureaucracy. In what way is deleting an article on an admiral improving the encyclopaedia? If he was a nobody, I'd be the first to agree with you. But he wasn't. He held a very senior military rank and people at that level are generally worth having articles about, even if the current article is pretty short. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am picking at nits with this trivial nonsense about verifiability. Yes, it is critical to note that it's an essay that is of no help here, not a guideline.

You are correct: He misread ~~a guideline~~ an essay in support of his opinion then decided to Ignore all ~~rules~~ non-rules that we call rules when the essay didn't support his view because he feels our core policies get in the way of what he wants. But I digress. If you'd like to keep the article -- and this is a radical idea -- you could find the sources we need but don't have. So far, there have been zero additional sources suggested. I've found nothing, you can do better. A crappy, unsigned scan from 1994 that has him very much still alive is all we have. In the 20 years since then, he supposedly did nothing else other than die. That's a remarkable tribute.

To summarize: The reasons to delete are that the article fails the very basis of the project and the essay that some would like to see support it doesn't support it. The reasons to keep are that someone wants to keep it. Compelling stuff.

You have a chance to show that the article can be improved. Or, you can argue that you feel the current piece of shit regurgitation is all that Admiral Ecker deserves. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep citing WP:V. Are you sure that's the policy you mean to be linking to? Because the article, poor as it is, is very much verifiable via a reliable source - I suspect you mean to be linking to WP:N? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." WP:V We do not have reliable third-party sources, we have one primary source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. All flag officers are generally considered notable by longstanding consensus. That consensus represents a particular reading of policy (in other words, the consensus is well aware of core policies, guidelines, and their relative weights.) Opposition to this consensus may exist; but, opposers should WP:AGF, and understand that those who support the consensus view are equally thoughtful, and that denigrating their view as foolish serves no useful purpose. Legitimate differences of opinion are not "misreadings." No one is misreading; people simply disagree, and should do so respectfully. Xoloz (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus documented? The ~~guideline~~ essay (which was misread) would seem to be where such a consensus should be documented, it isn't documented there. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:EDITCONSENSUS per the results of virtually every single AfD that's been held on a flag-rank officer. Being a cabinet-level government official is considered notable just for that; the same thing is (again, per WP:EDITCONSENSUS) considered to be the case once an offcer's shoulderpads sprout stars. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Building on The Bushranger's point, common AfD outcomes, which represent editorial consensus, are listed here. Xoloz (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"(G)enerally considered notable." ≠ "are notable." I'm bringing up the issue on the talk page for WP:SOLDIER as the pervading opinion here seems to be that flag officers are an exception to WP:V. If that is the consensus, we should document that. - SummerPhD (talk)

Comment - I have opened a discussion at WP:SOLDIER. This is an attempt to clarify and document the apparent concensus. This AfD seems fairly well snow covered. Assuming @The Bushranger: agrees, it seems the discussion here is about what WP:SOLDIER should say, rather than about Ecker in particular. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp Chris Troutman (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Other than his rank (and WP:SOLDIER which is a WikiProject Military History thing, not a WP-wide guideline), Ecker's "notability" relates to appearing before a number of Congressional and Senate Committee hearings in relation to maritime safety, and he presented at least one paper on that subject at a major conference. He was Chief of the Office of Navigation Safety and Waterway Services for the USCG in the 1990's, not sure how important a role that is. This from the single page of Google Books hits. On that basis, his notability per WP:GNG is marginal at best IMO. His gongs don't help him, as his highest is apparently Officer of the Legion of Merit, which is pretty much passe for a US one-star. I consider the one-star bit of SOLDIER to be blurry at the bottom ranks, so a one-star without clear notability per GNG is questionable. I would AGF and think he's got newspaper coverage no-one's bothered to look for yet. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.