Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Mellinger

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. The argument that, it was on Did you know? so it must be notable, has no basis in policy. DYK's acceptance criteria are mostly mechanical and do not confer any special aura of notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mellinger

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

okay, there are lots of decorated army guys, nothing to say why he is notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He was believed to be the last draftee of the Vietnam War-era to still be in the military (since proven to be one of three remaining), after which his retirement would have caused the entire service to be an all-volunteer service for the first time in recent memory, if not ever. I would like to believe that you are trolling here, especially since there are a lot of Google hits that you must have missed that clearly show why he is notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all trolling, and shame on you for violating WP:AGF, which you should read. This isn't your first AfD for notability, it won't be your last. "Believed to be" is speculation, since proven to have been incorrect. If that's some sort of milestone in your world, it has little to no cachet outside of military circles. To put it bluntly, "...so what?" Another recommended read is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. That is, if you're not too busy accusing other longterm editors of trolling or not knowing what belongs on Wikipedia...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if it came across as harsh, but the article also ran on "Did you know", which means that other members of the community also judged it to be notable enough to put on the main page, so that should also be noted here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for not satisfying WP:SOLDIER. Other than the Time article, all of the media notice is about his retirement. I'd also consider Afd'ing Daniel K. Elder (linked at the bottom), who has weaker sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done-that one is a self-published vanity page-subject is original editor.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does get some passing mentions in a few books [1] but none of the coverage seems to me to be significant (as evident from the fact that there is not enough to write a complete biography on him). Doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on "what is he notable for". For being one of the last draftees still in service?, that had to happen to someone. Would we write an article on the position of being the last draftee; I don't think that likely. So I don't see how by extension we'd do an article on a person who held that distinction (WP:OneEvent and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2015 (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.