Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Bruckbauer

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. Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bruckbauer

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I think we no longer assume that a Brigadier General is automatically or even presumably notable -- and there is nothing in this bio to suggest that he might be. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He appears to have retired. Since his area of expertise is foreign military sales, he may end up working for an arms manufacturer. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG, as do most general officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, sources provided, while mostly reliable and secondary do not "address[es] the topic directly and in detail". This seems to be a problem with a number of pages created by the page creator as noted on his/her Talk Page. Basic biographical detail is lacking, we know he was a Brigadier General (not inherently notable) and that he was involved in drone development with India with 5 of the 8 current sources about this fact. The only detailed source is his USAF bio which is PRIMARY and so disregarded for noatability. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - opinions of the article creator aside, (btw whose last half dozen or so articles that were sent to AfD were "kept") this appears to be sufficiently sourced for notability purposes. - wolf 20:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Er, in the article... where else? (And you're not doing that badgering thing again, are you? Just let people !vote how they want without you trying to argue them into changing their minds). - wolf 16:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page has 8 references, 5 of which relate to his involvement with a deal in India and 1 is a US Army bio, so I'm asking you how you see the sources as satisfying notability. Mztourist (talk) 09:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You already wrote that, and you can agf that I read it. How reading what I wrote, and leaving it at that... - wolf 18:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Better sourced or just as well sourced as other military bios that have passed AfDs. It is my opinion it passes WP:GNG when looking at the precedent. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that's just the point---in the past we have presumed notability for anyone who's a brigadier general, so not much in the way of specific sourcing was required. The standard has I think finally changed.Most of the sourcing is mere notices--none of it is substantial , except his official record. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Mztourist. Intothat darkness 18:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom and Mztourist. Nothing substantial, no indication of notability. Avilich (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mztourist.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we please keep views of fellow editors out of the debate? If you have a problem with someone else, please take it to WP:ANI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like an adequate reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be a deadlink with no archived copy Avilich (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article offers some detail, there is another that I'm unable to access due to GDPR. NemesisAT (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

already cited in the article Avilich (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. Gentleman wiki (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sourcing for notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this subject passes GNG; then it should be easy to provide a list of acceptable sources (Template:source assess might be useful); instead of having unconvincing assertions not backed by evidence or Wikipedia policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delelte: does not meet WP:BASIC, no indication of notability for a stand-alone article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found and added two new sources; there are a good number more, if anyone wants to grab them. jp×g 23:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added no content whatsoever and the coverage is the same as before, see WP:NOTEBOMB and WP:THREE. Avilich (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calling 2 sources a "notebomb" seems like a pretty creative interpretation of what that essay says. Regarding content, I am not interested in devoting several hours to expanding this stub, so no, I didn't add any, nor did I claim to have (in fact, I left a comment rather than !voting because the article is not that interesting to me). jp×g 22:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination and Mztourist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that this article could become something other than what it already is, which is insufficient. I endorse Mztourist's comment, got nothing to add.— Alalch Emis (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, as had been said. ––FormalDude talk 06:00, 21 October 2021 (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.