Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Megarr

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Edward J. Megarr}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Edward J. Megarr}})

Relies entirely on military journals and newsletters like the Marine Corps Gazette. Not sure if we should consider these independent enough to meet WP:SIGCOV (in the same way that we usually don't count trade journals and magazines in other fields). Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep - a quick gsearchs seems to show a few other hits, and a three-star general is almost absolutely notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Major general is two stars, not three. I'd agree he should be notable based on holding a division command alone, but I'm really surprised there isn't more out there. Especially since he seemed to have served during Vietnam. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Duh, right, it is two. My brain was going "Major is a higher rank than Lieutenant" and forgot that for Generals it's the other way around... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::No worries. Generals are always special... I might look through my sources and see if I can find anything relating to him during Vietnam. Don't have much on Korea, though. Intothatdarkness 03:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak delete you'd presume a Major general would be notable, but there aren't enough WP:RS to support that presumption, so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:Delete. Although a major general is *definitely* notable, the lack of WP:RS *does* make it fail WP:GNG. Any hits I can find on Google are either just presumably general listings of war vets, or user-generated content.

:Madeline1805 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::It should be noted GNG is a general (no pun intended) guideline, not the hard-and-fast ironclad standard a lot of people make it out ot be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@{{u|The Bushranger}} That's an essay that isn't widely recognized as valid. It's also true and not true. It is true GNG is only one pathway to prove notability. We have WP:SNGs as another recognized pathway which is what that non-policy essay is vaguely pointing to. But there isn't an SNG in this content area so all we are left with is GNG in this case or WP:ANYBIO/WP:BASIC. The subject doesn't meet any of these based on the current evidence. Perhaps there should be a SNG for military people but currently no such policy/guideline exists. We do need to follow a recognized policy/guideline at AFD. Otherwise WP:IAR would have us keep all articles mindlessly. You are making an IAR vote, which is fine, but most of us aren't going to take that argument seriously.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm very aware it's only an essay. It's one I happen to agree with. The thing is there used to be a SNG in this content area - WP:SOLDIER (which established "flag officers are always notable"). It was depreciated some time back, as a lot of SNGs have, which is highly unfortunate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::It seems that you are in a minority opinion that has been widely discredited after discussion. The fact that it was deprecated by community WP:CONSENSUS strengthens the argument that WP:GNG is what the community by consensus wants to see and expects to be applied in this context. Citing WP:ONLYESSAY/WP:NOGNG after a formal 2021 WP:RFC (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1008759107#rfc ) already told us to apply GNG in this context seems ill considered at best, and at worst a WP:DISRUPTSIGNS per criteria 5. You might want to rethink making arguments that have already been formally deprecated by an RFC outcome you are already aware of.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::So what? People argue keep based on obituaries all the time even though as far as I know there's no policy stating an obituary is an actual indication of notability. @The Bushranger's opinion is just as valid as yours in this instance. And as always the closer is free to ignore one or both opinions when evaluating this AfD. Intothatdarkness 16:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think you misread what I stated, and missed the point of this conversation. I have no problem with people making evidence based votes or using obituaries. The issue being addressed had nothing to do with the evaluation of obituaries but the admonition by The Bushranger to Madeline1805 that GNG somehow should be ignored or doesn't apply to this article. That directly contradicts the 2021 RFC decision in this content area which directs us to use GNG at all AFDs on military people. So no, his point is not equally valid. It's flat out against policy from an RFC ruling. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I'll note that the closure of that RFC was {{tqq|Consensus was reached amongst the participants to deprecate WP:SOLDIER in its current form}}. Which, IMHO, was unfortunate. I wasn't "admonishing" anyone, just noting that GNG is not the be-all and end-all. I do respect the community's decision, however I have always had, and continue to hold, the personal opinion that flag officers are notable if they pass WP:V. I understand that makes me a minority, but if so, so be it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I didn't misread what you stated. But I do disagree with your statement that the opinion was "widely discredited after discussion." Most of these discussions involve a handful of people, and aren't any more widely representative than that majority of polls. And I disagree with your contention that his viewpoint isn't valid. And yes, the obituary example is perfectly valid as an example of how something that isn't actually policy is often used in AfD. However, there isn't much in the way of RS dedicated to MG Magarr, which lead me to opt for weak delete. Intothatdarkness 21:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Weak Delete I checked my books, and I can only find reference to him as an assistant division commander in the early 1970s (after the 2nd Marine Division was out of Vietnam). I don't have as much on Korea, so it's possible he's mentioned in Marine Corps-centric works on that conflict. Still, he seems to have managed to avoid mention with some consistency (which is odd for a major general who commanded a division). Intothatdarkness 16:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.