Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew M. Schuster

: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 no consensus. Essays can't be treated in the same manner as guidelines. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 16:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Andrew M. Schuster]]=

:{{la|Andrew M. Schuster}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_M._Schuster Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Andrew M. Schuster}})

Non-notable military bureaucrat with no sources other than the DoD's own rote bio page Orange Mike | Talk 03:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The subject was a flag officer, which makes him notable, as can be seen here. Packerfansam (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. General officers are notable per WP:SOLDIER. We have always held this to be the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

:*query I thought that only applied to those who were general officers while in active service. If I read this correctly, he was a general in the reserves, not when he was on active duty. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

:*: The National Guard of the United States's lower ranks are part time, but all the uppity-ups are usually full time officers - I think we generally would say this passes SOLDIER(2) - my issue, however, is that SOLDIER only creates a presumption of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

:*:Nowhere does it mention "active service". A general officer is a general officer. There is no difference in rank. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:SOLDIER. I think there is enough on him to create an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Delete articles should have multiple sources that are indepdent of the subject. This article has one source from the subjects employer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
:Deletion is not cleanup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:SOLDIER. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

: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.