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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas A. Edson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Non-notable person. Prod denied by author based on this person's award of a Silver Star which, while laudable, does not necessarily rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This person is notable as I pointed out, he was awarded the Silver Star and the Presidential Unit Citation. In your own words; "This person's award of a Silver Star which, while laudable does not necessarily rise to the lever of notability required by Wikipedia. Another definition of laudable is "Notable".

I have seen countless articles about the 101 Airborne Division (Band of Brothers). Edson was awarded more decorations than most of those honorable men. I do not see why those articles are not up for deletion? Is it because hollywood made a movie about the "Band of Brothers?" is that why they are so notable? I will then say that in support of Mr. Edson his division was also depicted in two Hollywood movies. Patton (1971) and if fact Band of Brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that the accomplishments of our servicemen, past and present who served in combat, were decorated with medals of valor during combat, are not considered “Notable”. Unless of course Hollywood makes a movie about them, then they are considered notable. Do you not find that odd? Of all the men in Easy Company (Band of Brothers), only two were awarded the Silver Star. Those pages are not proposed for deletion, because Hollywood made a movie.

So the point here is that Hollywood decides what is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but am leaning Delete: I am going to make an educated guess that a grandchild of Mr. Edson wrote this article (Palmisano007). While this article is awesome from a family geneology standpoint, and took lots of effort, I'm not seeing how Mr. Edson is 'notable' enough in terms of wikipedia's standards. He was no doubt a fine man of the Greatest Generation. I suggest the author create a free blog via blogspot or something like that if s/he wants to get the family history online - google will still find it. If you think there are other articles like this on Wikipedia that normally survive deletion review, please give me some links so I can look. I have ancestors who served in WWII as well, but I never considered that they merited a page here. His division may well deserve an article if it doesn't have one. --Milowent (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep itYou may have ancestors who served during the second world war. But did were they awarded the Silver Star and/or Presidential Unit Citation? I gather not, which does not lesson thier service. I suggest before you opt for deletion you first invest a little time to read about how important and how HARD and NOTABLE it is to be awarded a Silver Star or Presidential Unit Citation. They don't just give them away. It takes heroic achievment and i'm not making that up. Who decided that a person's heroic are not worthy or notable. Have people forgotten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you mean List_of_Easy_Company_(506_PIR)_veterans - lots of these guys have pages. Hmmm. --Milowent (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Delete The article needs work but as mentioned a lots of these guys have pages List_of_Easy_Company_(506_PIR)_veterans, this is an interesting one if we delete this one we should be deleting all of those ones too... RP459 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should keep it, if you don't then delete the Band of Brothers soldiers. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.235.37 (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see WP:Other stuff exists. Simply because there are other articles about non-notable people, this is not an argument to keep this article. It is perhaps true that the articles on the Band of Brothers soldiers might be worthy of deletion (except that there is at least one reliable independent source for those articles), but that is not the issue here. This discussion is about Thomas A. Edson, nothing else. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It. Regardless of the fact that this article is mostly about an individual, the historical facts are those, facts. There is not a large amount of personal information about Edson listed, and what there is is not objectable. How many books or other articles are written about individuals who served during that time (or others)? It appears that the original posting and reason for suggesting deletion is that the writer felt that Edson was not notable enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia. I strongly disagree. Any person who serves in the military is notable - they have fought for their country. How do musicians, comedians, athletes, entertainers rate as being a standard find on Wikipedia and not a serviceman (Brittany Spears or Dane Cook...notable??). The fact that Edson was awarded a Silver Star is notable. As Wikipedia itself states: "It is also the third highest award given for valor (in the face of the enemy)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Star). I'm not sure I understand how someone who received such a high decoration would not be considered notable by Wikipedia??? Is WikiDan61 looking for another source to verify that these events occured? I would recommend searching any site for the battles listed and that verification will be given. As to why Edson was awarded the medals and citations, I can assume that this would be interesting to anyone searching for him, WWII veterans, or medal receipients... I know it was to me. [(User:Abby0505)] — Abby0505 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia has guidelines for what articles should be included and what articles should not. These guidelines do not include the blanket statement "servicemen are notable". I don't argue that any serviceman or woman has done more for this world than all the Brittany Spears put together, but that is not the criteria the Wikipedia uses. If you feel that it should use those criteria, you are free to suggest that at Wikipedia Talk:Notability. However, until those guidelines have been changed, articles must meet the guidelines that currently exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.

It is my belief that Edson was worthy of notice and his actions during WWII were "significant" He is qualified for an article based on his Distinguished Service. He was significant because he was awarded the Silver Star and PUC. Not many people during the war where award those medals singularly or both as he did. My article fits the definition of Notability on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, notability is not based on fame or popularity, but it is based on independent reliable sources. While there are many sources to verify the notability of Edson's unit, no sources have been provided to demonstrate that Edson himself was notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Without independent, reliable sources about the subject of the article, I had to look to see if receiving the silver star itself could make someone notable. The page on the silver star, however, says that between 100,000 and 150,000 have been awarded and that seems like a large number to confer notability to someone. Rnb (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many baseball players have there been in history? How many nascar drivers, basketball players, movie actors? Well over 150,000, but each one is determined to be notable and entitled to their wiki page if somebody makes one. Edson served his country with distinction and saved the life of another person. But that is not notable enough? As far as independant and "Reliable Sources" contact the United States Army and you can confirm that Edson was awarded the Silver Star and the Presidential Unit Citation. You can also confirm that Edson saved the life of another soldier which is why he was awareded the silver star. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But none of that would help meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Rnb (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one doubts that the Silver Star was awarded, or the PUC. But the other awardees of the Silver Star who have articles are also notable for other things - perhaps receiving higher awards, or multiple silver stars, or they were notable politicians, soldiers, etc for other reasons. Although obviously a brave man, being awarded the Silver Star (I am ignoring the PUC, as this was not awarded to Edson himself, but to the entire unit) is not in itself sufficient to be counted as notable on Wikipedia. There are other websites (including other wikis) where he can easily be included - you could even develop your own website to put this information on. However, I do not feel that Wikipedia is the correct place for this article, according to the criteria that we use. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have several books about the 10th Armored Division and everyone references Corporal Thomas Edson in the General Orders and Orders of Battle as recieving the Silver Star and Why. They also reference him getting wounded in combat and recieving the Purple Heart. At the close of the article I reference each of those books. Upon his return to Vermont after the war article were written in the newspapers about him. What more is needed? What sources are there for the boys of the Easy Company, 506 PIR of the 101 Airborne? A hollywood movie? That's credible and as I pointed out, you are not going to delete their pages. I'm not saying you should either, but if you will not propose deletion for them, you should not propose deletion for a man who recieved more decorations and a more important decoration of valor than a majority of E Company, 506 PIR of the 101 Airborne. Have some consistency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As another note I have three books referenced in my article. I have been working on proping citing them and have bee working on that. This is new to me. Those three books fall within the wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It comes down to verifiability and consistency. None of the information about Edson is sourced. Further, the article contradicts itself, even in some basic places (intro shows he's alive, later text implies he died in 1994). There are stylistic concerns - were the article to stay, at least half of the text would need cut, since it's only tangentially about Edson and better covered in the article about his unit. However, the underlying verification issue is what warrants deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm afraid. Although winning the Silver Star is laudable, I'm afraid it doesn't meet general wikipedia notability guidelines, nor the Military History Wikiproject's own notability guidelines for service personnel. Skinny87 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the notability guidline is currently at the level of only a country's top miitary honour automatically conferring notability. Much of the infomration in the article belongs more in the unit articles, rather than in an article on an individual. None of the sources cited focuses on Edson, unlike the men of the Band of Brothers where we have good sourcing. Yes it's unfair, but that's life I'm afraid. David Underdown (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit that my article needs more work. I am happy to oblidge and delete any content that does not fit. This was my first article and I know I made several mistake that I planned on correcting. I was also hoping that once posted it would be edited by other people. However its just proposed for deletion instead of assistance on making it better. However I venomously disagree that he was not notable. I also ask what sources so you have about the Band of Brothers? A movie? Some books? Hollywood is never a good source of reliability. Band of Brothers was made to make money and nothing else. I've Again Edson is specifically listed in each book under General Orders and Battle Orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.235.37 (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E Company, 506th PIR is, indeed, an unusual case, in which a book by Stephen Ambrose and a subsequent mini-series conferred notability on the unit in question, when otherwise it wouldn't have been notable. However, they are notable, particularly since a number of books have been penned on the individuals in the company, who would not otherwise have been notable. However, Edison is not a member of such a unit and does not as such meet notability guidelines, nor does his extremely laudable achievement in winning a Silver Star confer notability either; only those winning their nation's highest award, such as the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor achieve notability (in terms of winning awards). Although Edison may well be presented in your sources, this does not make him notable per our guidelines. I'm very sorry that this is the case, and it is in no way a slur on your writing skills. I would echo other suggestions made above and create a webpage independent of wikipedia to display this biography. Skinny87 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed in other postings for this article to propose its deletion. In not one does it address the hundreds of other pages that belong to non-notable people or topics that have not been deleted. It appears that this article has been targeted for deletion by prejudice. The author explains that several sources cite Edson receiving this medal, including that there was a newspaper article written about his service and return to his home state. I would encourage Wikipedia to keep this article and allow the author to cite additional references specifically identifying Edson as the notable person he appears to have been before deciding to delete it. I would also strongly suggest that those posting to delete this article provide further explanation other than "he was not notable" or "sources have not been cited." Do we not all strive to create our best work and look to others to assist us in learning? Having used Wikipedia on numerous occassions to search for a variety of topics, I can honestly write that I have seen many pages that made not sense either in grammer, topic, or notability. I have always viewed Wikipedia as a venue for finding any and all information about, simply everything. These postings have shown me how the process can work to delete pages that should be kept, so perhaps I will begin looking more closely at the pages I "skim" over that may not meet my search criteria and propose those for deletion. I think that notability can be argued in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abby0505 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're disappointed, but it has now been pointed out to you by multiple editors that the article does not meet notability standards for en.wikipedia, and the existence of other, possibly non-notable articles on wikipedia does not justify this article existing. I can't really see how else to explain this to you and your associaties (if that is what they are). The wikipedia notability guidelines have been in place for quite some time now, and have achieved consensus here on en.wikipedia. I would also point out that, should you choose to nominate any articles for deletion, you should first read up on the deletion guidelines as well as those for notability before maiking possibly pointy propositions.

I believe Edson fits the notability standard. As far as my article I will make any adjustments needed to reach the wiki standard. I would have referenced better but I had not figured out how to do it yet. As I said, this was/is my first article. I do not understand what has happened. In 1945 gettting awarded a Silver Star and the Presidential Unit Citation was BIG and NOTABLE. But 70 years later all is forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm afraid, as I've stated multiple times, he doesn't. Winning the Silver Star does not make him notable by our guidelines, and a Presidential Unit Citation is not awarded to an individual, but an entire unit - and it does not confer notability upon an individual anyway. Please, please read the notability guidelnes you have been linked to numerous times for further information

To give some further information, I'm citing the Military History Wikiproject's Notability guidelines, found here. It states that "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Note that it states 'presumed' and is therefore not always notable, and that it also states that notability requires 'significant coverage' in reliable sources. Whilst the books cited are indeed reliable sources, it is doubtful that Edison is given 'significant coverage' in them as a Silver Star winner - as some 100-150,000 such awards have been awarded in the US Army's history. Neither does Edison fall under the MilHist 'sufficient coverage' guidelines, as Edison is neither a 'Recipient[s] of a country's highest military decoration', 'People who commanded a substantial body of troops (such as an army or fleet, or a significant portion of one) in combat', 'Holders of top-level command positions (such as Chief of the General Staff)' or 'People who are the primary topic of one or more published secondary works'. In terms of the general notability guideline, Edison would not be notable because he has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources, particularly since he only (and I say that with absolutely no disrespect intended) won the Silver Star and was in a unit that recieved a Presidential Unit Citation. I hope that this clears up your remaining arguments over notability, although I am of course not the be-all or end-all of notability. For further debate, I would suggest going to wikipedia's Military History wikiproject at WT:MILHIST and enquiring there. Skinny87 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiki 16 million men and women served in the U.S. forces during WWII. According to Wiki between 100,000-150,000 service personnel were awarded the medal since created in 1918. For arguments sake I will assume that all 150,000 Silver Star were awarded during WWII. That means that LESS than 1% of ALL U.S. servicemen were awarded the medal. I fail to see how that does not meet the criteria and yes, I have read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but as it stands at the moment, they don't qualify. I've put the question to the Military History Wikiproject to see what consensus is, and you're welcome to partake in that debate, and also to suggest a new notability guideline that would allow those who have won the Silver Star (and other similar awards) to become notable. But as it is, Edison is not notable. And please sign your name when you post - it makes posting by others more difficult when the signbot has to edit as well, causing editconflicts. Skinny87 (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though I am fighting an uphill battle that I will never win. I know that nobody in this discussion is attempting to negate or lessen the achievements of Edson during WWII. I appreciate the guarded qualifications by several of you who called his achievement laudable. I have printed off a copy in preparation for deletion. Thank you all for your thoughts on this matter, but I totally disagree with the deletion of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank-you for being reasonable, and once again I'm sorry Mr Edison isn't notable. Perhaps he might be one day in the future, but that will be for WP:MILHIST and the rest of the community to decide. Why don't you join the wikiproject - I'm sure there are any number of other articles you could help write and edit with some help! Skinny87 (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite but I believe I’m going to retire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further reading on wiki policy it mentions that an article can be merged with another. Can Edson's article be merged with the 10th Armored Division article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.222.200.70 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am entering this fray late in the game. I too do not understand the issue of "notable" but it appears the argument has already been lost and dwelling on it will not change the result. My comment is to Skinny87. If you are charged with editing articles and choosing which are doomed, perhaps you should begin by editing your own work more carefully. The subject of the article which is set for deletion is "Thomas A. Edson". Throughout your comments, and I have read them all, you incorrectly refer to him as "Edison". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.193.72 (talk • contribs)

Skinny87 (talk · contribs) is no more "charged with choosing which articles are doomed" than any other Wikipedia editor. That's why we have these AfD discussions: to reach consensus so that no one person can "own" Wikipedia. People make mistakes, even experienced editors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm sorry about that - a slip on my part, and I do apologize. But as WikiDan has said, I'm in no way 'in control' of this process. I'm just one editor who has made an argument which is nothing personal, and should consensus turn against that argument I would be happy to follow it. Skinny87 (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, surely a notable person in the dictionary sense of "worthy of note", but not a notable person per Wikipedia's sense of the word. However, after deletion, recreate as redirect to Thomas Edison: his middle name was Alva, so this is an easy typo for Thomas A. Edison. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87, make no mistake; my decision to end the defense of the Edson article should not be construed as seeing your point of view. I don’t see it and you and others are wrong. But I see the truth in the fact that I will never win, no matter what I say. I had every intent about being diplomatic about it. In my arguments I stated I will make any corrections necessary to come into compliance for references. Not one person offered to assist me in that task. Instead it was, delete, delete, delete. It’s unfortunate that the sacrifices and accomplishments of a generation long ago are looked at with such detachment. If it was not for this detachment then his notability would be recognized without hesitation. Simple fact is, Edson was born without the golden spoon. He did not have the advantages of people like Patton, Ike or Omar. He was not afforded the opportunity to attend college and get a military command. He was born into a poor family of twelve in the small state of Vermont. To make matters worse BOTH of his parents passed away before he was in Jr. High. Social services at that point in history did not exist, Edson and his siblings were left to their own device. He travelled to Detroit to get a job in a sheet metal factory. When war broke out he enlisted and did his part. When a fellow soldier was in need, he risked his own life to pull him out of a burning tank, dragging the unconscious man over 100 yards to safety. While under enemy fire. He could have turned and ran but he did not. He may have been left behind as a youth but he was not going to leave anybody behind when it was his turn. When wounded in combat he received another medal and the right to return to the front. (I can’t forget the twelve dollars a month in disability he received too) The twelve dollars paid by the US Army was to assist his living standard because after all, he came out of the army with a limp and steal in his body from his own exploding tank. Its funny they never took it out.

So continued to write and approve articles about Scottish Playwrights and Brittney Spears. God knows their accomplishments did more to quash oppression and make the world a safer place. Even if briefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I realize that you're upset by this decision and are taking it personally, and for some reason are focusing on me for some reason (perhaps, ironically, because I took the time to explain why the article was nominated for deletion in some detail) but that doesn't give you the right to launch into a sanctimonious speech against me. I don't edit articles about Scottish Playrights or Britney Spears (that's rather a randon selection, although nothing wrong with editing them) but I'll tell you which articles I do edit - articles related to airborne warfare and the brave men who fought and died as part of those formations. Men like Major-General Eric Bols who led the 6th Airborne Division during Operation Varsity, the airborne operation over the Rhine in March 1945. Or men like Major General George F. Hopkinson, a pioneer of airborne warfare who was killed in Italy in 1943 after getting too close to a machine-gun nest. And I write about many of the airborne operations that took place during the Second World War, in which who knows how many men died to 'quash oppression and make the world a safer place' as you put it.

My point with the above is that I can get just as sanctimonious as you, and get into a lather, but I don't want to. Please, don't take this deletion personally just because en.wikipedia decided Mr Edson wasn't notable for this website. That doesn't diminish his accomplishments at all - it just means that by our standards, he doesn't merit an individual article. That's because, as I've said, there aren't sufficient reliable sources to create an article, and because he didn't meet our notability standards. In fact, a fellow editor in the MilHist wikiproject made an excellent point; if we did allow individuals such as Mr Edison to be notable and have articles, most of them would be little more than copy and pasted info from an official website, where they are already honoured, with no more information possible; we'd just be duplicating information. Skinny87 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As someone else has said above, there have been more than 100,000 Silver Stars awarded - and although getting a Presidential Unit Citation is impressive for a unit, the award is precisely that... one given to an entire unit, not to an individual. Although no doubt a brave and honourable man, there is insufficient indication of Mr Edson's notability in his own right. His citation for the Silver Star, which I personally think shows great bravery, is not so unusual - many hundreds of people have received Silver Stars for similar acts. However, many soldiers received more than one (the person to receive the most is Colonel David Hackworth who received 10). I stand willing to be convinced that this brave man is more notable than the thousands of others who were in his unit (so getting the PUC), who received silver stars and the other medals he did. However, what I see in the article does not convince me yet. I would suggest userfying it, but the creator has a copy of a previous version already at User:Palmisano007/Thomas Edson. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel David Hackworth was beyond notable, he was absolutely remarkable. But does that mean that all others are nothing compared to him? Can it not be considered that he is an example of the pinnacle of notability and Edson meets the first standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.235.37 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny87 The scottish playwright comment was not direct towards you, but the person who proposed deletion in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a veteran myself, who served in combat and has received awards from my commanders I think the issue is that the author of this article is unfortunately taking the description of "not notable" personally. It's not a personal affront and in no way means that Mr. Edison was not honorable and heroic. (It's obvious that he was)... "Notable" in terms of Wikipedia asks the questions: - were his accomplishments noted in publications that reached thousands of people? Was his personal story the subject of a book, a film, or a variety of newspaper articles? Without citation there is no verification that such is the case, and if it's not the case then his accomplishments are not grounds (alone) for notability (as defined by Wikipedia). While I feel strongly that he is deserving of respect, I do not believe that he should be included in Wikipedia. There are thousands of soldiers who died in WWII, who, all told, earned many thousands of medals, honors and awards. There are many more who survived and earned awards and medals of every description. There are soldiers from wars pre and post WWII that could make the same claim. That being said, the personal story of each of those people is not notable unless it was noted by periodicals, books, or news organizations for being ground changing or a watershed moment. If Wikipedia began the business of approving articles on soldiers who performed heroically, regardless of whether or not they were "notable", there would be little room for anything else. It's not a personal attack. It's not meant to diminish Mr. Edison's achievements. It's a matter of remaining true to the content guidelines of Wikipedia.Etrangere (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our WP:BIO policy - I suggest the editor copies the content so he can put it on a blog or family history site as it's a nice bit of family history (for the family that is). --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BIO not met. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I have the utmost respect for Mr. Edson and his war record, I firmly believe that each military biography should be individually assessed against the criteria for inclusion 1) Are there significant non-trival sources about the person - if yes then they are almost certainly notable - indeed this is what makes them notable by wikipedia's definition. (This is the one that allows the Band of Brothers soldiers to have articles, although I personally believe that many of those could also do with a run through Afd) 2) Did they hold a position of authority or influence in their branch of service, i.e. a position that was notable across that branch of service 3) Were they the recipient of the highest medal for valour (and only the highest) available to them 4) Is there any other criteria that might apply that raises them to prominence above the ordinary soldier.

As an inclusionist on general principles I attempt to see notability in all subjects, but I am afraid that to my mind Mr. Edson does not meet any of the above criteria and that therefore, with regret, this article should be deleted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to 10th Armored Division (United States) It kills me to vote delete, but there does not appear to be a single substancial independent source which actually discusses Mr. Edson's life. The sources in the article all prove that the 10th Armored Division is notable, just not this one soldier in said division. In fact, much of this excellently written content could be reorganzied slightly, and used to expand and improve the 10th Armored Division (United States) article, since lots of it is about the division rather than the soldier himself. I would have voted delete, but per WP:PRESERVE, I think that there is some good content here which could be repurposed elsewhere, even if the subject himself is clearly not notable per WP:BIO. --Jayron32 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete--does not meet WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY. As Cameron Scott suggests, this should make great material for a personal site for family history, but not a worldwide encyclopedia. Shanata (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what i'm going to do is create an online source for all veterans and their families to post biographies. Hometown heroes is nice but I think it lacks the ability for vets/families to tell the story. It is important for people to read and be informed about the dedication and heroic of our veterans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, any relevant material to 10th Armored Division (United States). Buckshot06(prof) 03:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP The man won a silver star, an award he shares with many noted men and women who have earned that very distinct honor. That’s notable enough for me. Also, if the essential predicate for the inclusion of biographies on Wikipedia is that the subject be notable, then should we not take account of the following:

“It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious[ly] question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.” — Jimbo Wales quoted here. [Emphasis added.]

This is an encyclopedia with unlimited space. Inclusion on Wikipedia of a small article that is factually correct and written from a neutral point of view about a soldier who was awarded a significant number of awards including and especially a silver star and a presidential citation — all of which is verifiable via a Google search — surely does not run contrary to the intention of Wikipedia nor is not encyclopedic. Moreover, the guideline for biographic notability states that the concept of notability “is distinct from ‘fame’, ‘importance’, or ‘popularity’, although these may positively correlate with notability.” [Emphasis added.] Finally, I cannot find anything from a cursory examination of the Wikipedia official policy on biographies of living persons that automatically and clearly cries out for the exclusion of this article. I vote to keep. — SpikeToronto (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject Military History Biography criteria, linked above, state that only winning a nation's highest award is automatically notable, not winning a slightly lesser medal like the Silver Star/Military Medal, and this consensus seems to have been supported by a discussion on the project's talkpage here. Between 100-150,000 members of the US Armed Forces have won the Silver Star, and numerous units have been awarded a PUC, and the latter is awarded to a unit, not an individual. One user in the linked discussion on WT:MILHIST makes an excellent point - if we allow these individuals to have an article, then they would be little more than copy and pasted articles with their name, unit and perhaps an official citation; since they are rarely focused on in reliable sources (unlike Victoria Cross & Medal of Honor winners) then these articles would be little better than stubs which could be just as easily found on an official site. There would also be hundreds of thousands of them - perhaps even millions when we consider the Silver Star-level medals awarded by all militaries around the world - and given that many of the recipients would still be living, they would be a WP:BLP nightmare. Who would maintain all of these perma-stubs to make sure they aren't vandalized? Wiki has enough of a problem with BLP isses at the moment, without adding potentially more than a million more articles which could never be expanded with WP:Reliable Sources. Skinny87 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that all of the Silver Star winner's highlighted in your first link, Spike Toronto, were notable for other reasons than winning a Silver Star - being a member of the American government, commanding a ship during a notable misson or accident, or becoming a command-level officer. Unfortunately, Mr Edson did none of these things, even though winning the Silver Star is, of course, extremely commendable and took considerably bravery. Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the relevant notability policy (WP:BIO) notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources on a person. This article has no sources at all about Mr Edson other than one website in which his name appears on a list of people awarded the Silver Star. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; as has been pointed out above, no matter how worthy an individual or their achievements, notability in Wikipedia terms means "enough substantial coverage in independent, fact-checked, reliable sources that we can write a well-sourced article". Where the source material doesn't exist, Wikipedia can't be the place to establish that notability. EyeSerene^talk 09:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT Notable, notable, notable. Everyone obsesses about notable. The founder of this very encyclopedia, that the exclusionists in our midsts so want to protect by deleting properly sourced and neutrally written articles, says that verifiablity and neutral point of view are more important than notability. And, I hate to break it to the younger generation, but there are more sources than just what one can find on the internet via Google. The search engine test is a mere first step, as it were. Thus, there is more to verifiability than what one can find electronically. I also don’t trust the search methodology of someone whose search does not involve war records, etc., in trying to assess WP:V. Finally, and I’m a little confused about this: Is the space occupied by Mr. Edson’s article needed for something else? Has Wikipedia hit some heretofore unknown size limit? The whole reason Wales did not want a focus on notability, notability, notability, is that it is not expansive, it is not inclusionary. Let us be expansive and inclusionary and live up to his vision of this project. — SpikeToronto (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment SpikeToronto, a response to your comment:

1. Jimbo Wales is not god... he has an opinion, and indeed NPOV and verifiability are important, but the general consensus on Wikipedia is that notability is a criteria for inclusion.
2. I agree that the Internet is not the only source of information (note that I said the Internet, not just Google!) - and the article does use books as references - but the books do not have a significant amount of information about Edson, do they?
3. Server space is not an issue - no one is saying "delete this to save space" - in fact, as even deleted articles are kept (albeit only available for users with sufficient rights to see), the space saved is negligable.
4. If Mr Wales wants to weigh in on this discussion, then let him speak for himself.

• Having re-read the article (for the 4th or 5th time), I am struck again by the fact that this is pretty much about the 10th, not about Edson. There are phrases such as "Edson and the 10th..." throughout the article, and apart from the citation, very little of the article refering to the actions of the 10th are actually about Edson himself, but about the unit. Looking at the article section by section:
  • Family and early years: completely about Edson, but unsourced
  • World War II: The first paragraph is about Edson (unsourced); the next paragraph (the longest of the section) is not about him, but about his unit; the next section is about Edson - his Silver Star and mention of Purple Heart (but no sources); the final three paragraphs (all very short) are about Edson
  • Post-War Life: This paragraph is about Edson (unsourced)
  • 10th Armoured Division combat chronicle: This entire section is about the 10th, all mentions of Edson are basically "Edson and his division did this..." - no specific references to what Edson (as opposed to the division) is mentioned
  • Casualty statistics of the 10th Armored Division - beyond showing the casualty rate of the Division, I'm not sure what this is doing here
  • Photo Gallery: If this article was to remain on Wikipedia, this would be brilliant, as there are several photographs of Edson
  • 10th Armored Division on film: No mention of Edson, no reason for it to be in this article
  • References:
    • Books: Unfortunately I do not have access to the three books (they aren't available in any of my local libraries), but I'd be surprised if they have much (if any) mention of Edson, as they are about the unit, not individual soldiers (of course, if someone who has access has checked them out, I'm happy to be corrected)
    • Websites: "10th Armored Division web page": The only mentions of Edson are on the forums; "United States Memorial Holocaust Museum": No mentions of Edson
    • Links: None of the websites mention Edson - only the 10th AD, with the exception of the final one which lists him as a Silver Star recipient (although I don't think anyone has doubted this)
• In summary, the references given do not verify the article contents about Edson. Although SpikeToronto, and others, would like Wikipedia to be a memorial to every soldier who ever served and got a medal (I presume you are not just including American soldiers? I assume you'd want it for British, Canadian, Danish, Egyptian, French, German, etc etc soldiers) - that is not Wikipedia's purpose. There might well be a wiki out there somewhere formed for this purpose (or perhaps one of the editors who feels that this article should be on Wikipedia could start one!) but I am not looking at any other wikis, just the English Wikipedia, and unless the criteria for notability (and verifiability, which this article also fails) are removed, then this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, no matter how much the editors here feel that Edson was a brave soldier (and I don't see anyone disagreeing with this sentiment).
• This is my final comment on the subject of this article, unless someone manages to provide verifiable and reliable references to show the notability of this individual soldier. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the information Specifically regarding the 10th Armored Division. I simply don't know what more I need to do. As far as citations I will work ont aht too as soon as I can figure out how to do that. But I should point out that several Band of Brothers articles are flagged as not having proper citations. As I understand it, the reason why Edson's article needs to be deleted is because Wiki editors are worried about vandalism? I don't understand, would vandalism be something like deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People keep on mentioning that because just because "other stuff exist" it is not an argument. Well read futher:In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid. The invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. (See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid).

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

Most of the Easy Company Band of Brothers appear to have articles. Only TWO E Company Soldiers were awarded the Silver Star during WWII. Most of them DID NOT lead a significant number of men or a military unit. To my knowledge no solider in Easy Company was awarded the Medal of Honor. Several of them DO NOT have proper citations either. Be CONSISTENT IN CONTENT. The men of Easy Company (Even the ones who were not awarded the Silver Star are notable. They got their articles, so shouldn’t Edson, who was also notable based on the Silver Star and the fact that he served with a distinguished unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the above comments on non-notability. User:Palmisano007 - please discontinue your second-guessing of all the delete comments, you are not doing yourself any favours. ukexpat (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought this was a discussion where I had the ability to argue my case for notability. Guess I don't, thanks for pointing that out to me ukexpat. Also thanks for pointing out that my continued discussion is doing nothing but causing people vote delete. Here I thought the purpose was for people to judge the article and not the contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That's not what I said. The reviewing admin will obviously take your comments into account, but making them ad nauseam in response to every "delete" comment does not improve your case.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Palmisano007, this is indeed the place for you to argue the case for notability - but you are basically using the same two arguments from what I can see: (1) He won a Silver Star and was part of a unit that got a PUC; (2) Other articles exist. Using these arguments are not wrong in and of themselves (whether convincing or otherwise) - the problem is that you are using these two arguments over and over. I have responded to both of those arguments, so I won't go into it again. I can't speak for anyone else here, only for myself, but I can assure you that I am judging the article not the contributor. Ukexpat didn't say that you are causing people to vote delete - firstly, this isn't a vote - it's a discussion, where the quality of the arguments used is what will decide the outcome, not how many people said "vote" or "keep". He said that you aren't helping the case by restating the same arguments. I have said a few times that the way to save this article is to find some independent references to Edson (on the websites you cite, for example, none of them mention him, apart from the list of Silver Star recipients, which no one here is disputing he got); the books you site (like the websites) are about the 10AD, not about Edson. Unless you can show that they have significant mentions of Edson (beyond a single mention about the citation for the Silver Star), then they are not suitable to use as references for an article about this individual soldier, although perfect for an article about the 10th AD. Find a source of information that is reliable (ie not a forum, a blog or a family memebr's website) that has significant coverage of Mr Edson - and it doesn't have to be a website, it can be a book with a decent amount of information about him that has been published (rather than self-published) and is available to the general public; or it could be a newspaper article about Edson which is just about him, rather than just a sentence about him... find those, and I'll change my recommendation to delete the article. I looked as intensively as I could, but as I am not in the US, it is harder for me to find books etc which may mention him - I couldn't find any suitable websites. Rather than using the same arguments, help us by finding sources of information which fit the criteria for WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. No one here wants to delete the article for the sake of it, or to annoy you, or anything - but as it stands, it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria for WP:NOTABILITY or WP:MILMOS#NOTE -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phantomsteve; The books, list Edson in the General Orders as recieveing the Silver Star and Purple Heart. The award of the silver star has a description of the events leading up to the award. The books are not about Edson, however most of the 11,000 men of the 10th Armored are listed at all. But as I understand it that is not what you want anyway. You want a book authored by Ambrose, or similar.

When Edson returned home in 1946 an article was written in the Burlington Free Press, Vermont's Largest news paper, addressing that Edson had returned. The article describes that he was wounded in combat and awarded the Silver Star. If that is what you are looking for then I would be glad to add a citation to this article as I have a copy. However you don't and sicne you can't find it online my assumption is you don't want it.

I have a copy of his military record that was reviewed and updated on August 1st, 2009 by the National Archives/US Army. The information for this article was written directly from the information contained within his military record. But as I understand it, that information, although unbiased is not acceptable.

There are other articles about Edson in reference to bowling. Winning some individual tournaments and such. But again you can't find them online. His bowling days concluded about 20 years ago. Besides the fact that Bowling was not what made him notable. My intent in the article was to desribe his notable service to the U.S, not bowling.

It's great that you defend Ukexpat and his comment. But you know as well as I that it was a jab. Now its ad nauseam because I have been attempting to defend my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmisano007 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not have to appear online to be considered reliable sources. If the article is generally available (e.g. in library archives, etc.), than that is sufficient. The significance of the coverage is important though -- if the article was a full column length or more describing Edson's accomplishments in some detail, this might be significant. If it was a paragraph buried deep in the paper that merely welcomes home a local war hero, this probably is not significant (in terms of Wikipedia's definition of "significant coverage"). Similarly, references about Edson's bowling career probably aren't applicable, since the article is about Edson the soldier, not Edson the bowler. The copy of Edson's military record may not be considered a valid source as it is not generally available, and thus the information cannot be independently verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As WikiDan says, sources don't have to be online - as I mentioned on your user talk page, it is the ability for some people in the right part of the world to be able to check (verify) the sources that counts. Your assumption that I wouldn't be interested in a source that I can't check is invalid - I would be quite happy if you provide a source like that, as someone will check it. As WikiDan also says, it's the significance of the coverage that is important - if it's a front-page or close-to-front page, and consists of several paragraphs, it might well be notable. If it's just a single paragraph (which most 'home-welcoming' articles tend to be), then it may not be.

With regard to the Military record, I'm not sure about how that works in the US. Would I be able to pay to get a copy of it, or is it only available to family members? (in the UK, to see my grandfather's details from the second world war, I would have to provide a copy of his death certificate showing that he is dead (otherwise only he can get it, or his wife), and a letter from the next of kin (my mum) saying that she gives permission for his details to be released to me - in this case, I would not be able to use it as a reference, as the general public can't get a copy). If it is not available for the general public, you can't use it as a reference, as it can't be verified. If it is (even if I would have to pay to get a copy), then it can be used.

With regard to the bowling - as both you and WikiDan say, the article isn't about Edson the bowler, but Edson the soldier. The bowling would not help the soldier bit! If he played as a full-time professional (or at the highest level of Amateur play such as the Olympics), then he might be notable in this regard (see WP:ATHLETE) but not as a soldier. Against, it's all down to the significance of the coverage.

Finally, I am not defending Ukexpat (or anyone else) - I am merely explaining what he seems to be saying, as it was something I was thinking of mentioning. I am not here to defend or attack any editor - I am here to improve an encyclopedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the Author: You should add the citation to the 1946 newspaper article, though it seems its not going to change the outcome at this point (I commented very early in the discussion of this article and came back to see this huge scroll-a-thon). If you want me to do it in proper cite format, upload a scan to photobucket or somewhere and shoot me a link via my talk page and I'll do it for what its worth. I still think the article you wrote has great information in it, but its not falling within wikipedia's guidelines per all the discussion above.--Milowent (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Without a published source specifically about Edson you just are not going to meet notabliliyt requirement for the article. However the 10th Armored Division (United States) article could certainly use some expansion and since there appear to be published sources on the 10th Armored division that mention that Edson was awarded a silver star, mentioning that fact in that article (with a suitable inline reference) would be fine, and that would at least provide some commemoration of his valor.Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2009 (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.