Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland L. Bragg

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Roland L. Bragg}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Roland L. Bragg}})

This will be controversial. Bragg was a non-notable soldier until 2 days ago, when he was used to justify the renaming of Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg. He was not and is not independently notable except for that WP:1E. The page should be deleted and relevant information covered at Fort Bragg#Renaming to Fort Bragg or a separate page should be created about the naming and renaming of Fort Bragg Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Keep. As long as Fort Bragg is named after him (which may or may not be a while), it will be useful to have reliable information about who he was on Wikipedia. 78.41.128.26 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Bragg clearly has WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, WP:ANYBIO states that the recipient of "a well-known and significant award or honor" makes one eligible. Having one of the largest military installations in the world named after you surely qualifies. Furthermore, Bragg does have coverage in newspapers and a book outside of and preceding the fort surrounding the ambulance incident; therefore WP:1E does not apply. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 04:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Having a base (or a ship) named after you does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO#1 which refers to awards like the Medal of Honor. The ambulance incident wasn't notable 2 days ago. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::ANYBIO does not say that it is only referring to awards or honors like the Medal of Honor. Do you have precedent for this view? Moreover, of course the ambulance incident is notable. It was covered in multiple newspapers and in a book. Just because it hadn't been covered until today doesn't mean that it wasn't notable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}Contribs} 05:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I have never seen any determination that having a base named after you satisfies WP:ANYBIO#1, but there is precedent that having a ship named after a person does not make that person independently notable, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159#having a military ship named after you proves notability. To my knowledge a discussion of base names has not occurrred, presumably because bases are usually named after notable people (Generals, MoH awardees etc.) and not just people who conveniently have the same surname as a Confederate general. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Bases can also be named after general ideas such as liberty, and cities can be named after random miners in the case of the Soviet Union. It's not our job to make value judgments whether the persons are deserving of being namesakes, just to weigh if a subject has received sufficient coverage to establish notability. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Anybio says a well-known award or honor. Randomly having a military base named after you is definitely an edge case here. I'm on the fence. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::This fort is among the largest in the world, with over 50,000 military personnel. That's a large reason why it was renamed originally, it was seen as offensive to have such an important place to be named in honor of a Confederate general. In any case, it's better suited to the WP:BIO talk page to hammer out the details about whether military ships--which includes cargo ships, patrol boats, etc, not just the gigantic aircraft carriers--or military bases, or similar, being named after a subject should be seen as a well-known award or honor. As said above, ANYBIO is part of the additional criteria. The larger discussion is whether Bragg meets WP:BASIC, which is hard to argue against considering the SIGCOV he has received. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::And how much of that coverage resulted from having the base renamed after him? I would say the vast majority. So far the only RS that has been shown predating that is the Eisenhower book...one book in the vast historiography of the Battle of the Bulge. Reunions Magazine has not been determined to be an RS as far as I know, and there's really nothing else of note. Merging his information to the fort article doesn't convey undue weight but still preserves the information. Intothatdarkness 18:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Yes, there's been a lot of coverage about him in the wake of being announced as namesake (that's an argument in support of a military base being named in honor of someone qualifying as a well-known award or honor under ANYBIO; reliable sources deem it significant). We don't need to establish that he was notable prior to the renaming, as this AfD is not taking place prior to the renaming. As Chetsford says below, the majority of the coverage is from the past week, but not all of it, and not all of the coverage pertains to the renaming, so it's not a case of 1E.
• ::::::::Per SIGCOV, ' "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' This is the case here, we have a comprehensive biography without original research, detailing the subject's early and personal life, his service in the military, his post-military activities, and his accolades, including that he is the namesake of Fort Bragg. Attempting to shoehorn detailed biographical information into the Fort Bragg article would make it clunky per WP:NOTMERGE. And unless the proposal is to shoehorn a biography of former namesake Braxton Bragg into the Fort Bragg article too, it would be undue weight to do so for current namesake Roland L. Bragg. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Except we don't have detailed biographical information on this Bragg. The article mostly repeats recent coverage, complete with unverified anecdotes. And that's because, frankly, he wasn't notable before the renaming occurred. It's clearly a 1E. Intothatdarkness 22:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::We currently have an ~1,800-word biography which has in-line citations, and contains all the detail I mentioned above. This AfD is not taking place in February 2024, it's taking place in February 2025. There's no policy which states we must disregard all coverage of a subject prior to an arbitrary date. A counterfactual that 'if you ignore all the SIGCOV recently, this subject wouldn't be notable' is not a great argument for deletion, and 1E applies to cases where a person is covered in the context of only one event. There is discussion of the subject--including Bragg's reference in the book by military historian John Eisenhower 50+ years before the renaming of the fort, as well as all the recent coverage which not just mentions that he is the namesake, but gives detail on his accomplishments in the military and his life in general--which demonstrates this is not a case of 1E. The alternative to deletion being merging detailed biographical information into an article about a military base which has been in operation for over 100 years is not a great solution either per NOTMERGE. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Your wall of text remains unpersuasive, but it appears the article will be kept. I have yet to see a single RS prior to the renaming aside from Eisenhower's single reference on a single page. Please do add such a reference to the article if you happen to find one. Intothatdarkness 18:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::You said we don't have a detailed biography when we have ~1,800 words, but a ~180-word comment is a "wall of text"? For reference, the word count of the Fort Bragg article is already around 30x that amount. If 180 words is a wall of text, wouldn't that be an argument against merging this article into the Fort Bragg article per NOTMERGE?
• ::::::::::::This article currently has about 40 references including various RS and there are no sentences that lack an in-line citation, so I don't see an urgent need to add to the article. There are more pressing needs (such as the articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs which have 0 references compared to this article's 40+ references, for example), and I have to keep time in my schedule to write these walls of text. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Roland Bragg would not pass WP:GNG prior to February 2025. With the exception of the brief mention in Eisenhower's book, which doesn't feature in any other histories of the Battle of the Bulge, the pre-February 2025 sources on the page are governmental record namechecks and run of the mill local news about a fairly unremarkable life. Since February there have been numerous news stories, which make up the vast majority of the references for this page, repeating the same information. So what changed? Obviously the base renaming, making it a clear case of WP:1E. In my nomination I suggested that we could create a separate page about the naming and renaming of Fort Bragg as it is a controversial issue as even this discussion has shown. Roland Bragg was a non-notable soldier, he was only chosen as the namesake because of his surname. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::It doesn't have to pass GNG prior to February 2025. It needs to pass GNG now, which it easily does. It the past, it would have been a WP:1E with the ambulance incident but now it's no longer related to simply one event and has clear notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 04:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::::No he does not pass GNG, the 1E of the base renaming is what's notable. The ambulance incident is non-notable and only covered in one book. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::::::Not the case; it is also covered in other RSes:
• ::::::::::::::::* {{cite news |last1=Diehl |first1=Phil |title=Roland Bragg |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/north-county-times-roland-bragg/165210203/ |access-date=February 18, 2025 |work=North County Times |via=Newspapers.com |date=March 14, 1994 |pages=[https://www.newspapers.com/article/north-county-times-roland-bragg/165210203/ A1], [https://www.newspapers.com/article/north-county-times-roland-bragg-story/165212343/ A9]}}
• ::::::::::::::::~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 18:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Now that Fort Bragg is named after him, he has widespread coverage in reliable sources. And there is The Bitter Woods. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: DMVHistorian (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Please advise your policy based argument. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::I appreciate the thoughtful discourse on this topic. However, to me, Bragg is certainly eligible under WP:ANYBIO at this point. I would concur with others that having one of the largest bases in the world named after a subject would be considered an honor befitting a "well-known and significant award or honor." If there is a more robust definition of how Wikipedia defines "significant honor" that does not include a military installation, I would be interested to see it. Additionally, the assertion that Bragg was not notable in any way prior to this week is discounting that he received prior recognition including the Silver Star for his brave exploits during the Battle of the Bulge, which were notable enough for John Eisenhower to include in his 1969 book on the subject, which was listed as a bestseller in The New York Times, Publisher's Weekly, and TIME magazine. It is safe to say that many readers across the United States learned Roland Bragg's name then, just as readers are re-learning his name today. His story of bravery was not merely told this week for the first time - it was featured in various newspapers across the United States and in at least one magazine going as far back as thirty years ago and most recently in 2016. Lastly - As of writing this, this article has reached over 86 thousand views in the past day. The median article on Wikipedia gets about one page view per week, or an average of 52 views per year (WP:VIEWSSTATS). In my view, it is clear that the readers of this encyclopedia are interested and earnest to learn more about this notable American hero, and I personally think we should give them the great privilege to do so. Thank you all for your time. DMVHistorian (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::The Silver Star is the 3rd-highest military decoration for valor in combat, it is never enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO#1. Of course the page has high views, Hegseth chose him because he shares Braxton Bragg's surname, pure WP:1E Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC) I've read extensively about the Battle of the Bulge, visited the battlefield and museums several times and have never heard about the ambulance incident until reading Bragg's page. It isn't even mentioned on the Battle of the Bulge page. I don't have Eisenhower's book, how much of it is devoted to Bragg? A chapter? A page? A paragraph? Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::If the Google snippet is anything to go by, less than a page. I've also done extensive reading on the Battle of Bulge, and have never heard of Bragg until now. I suspect this will be kept based on the renaming (hence my weak Keep vote), but I really don't think he has any notability aside from that. And he certainly doesn't inherit notability from the sales figures for Eisenhower's book. Intothatdarkness 17:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Although it is not deep, it does contribute to his coverage being widespread. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Except it wasn't widespread in RS as far as I can tell prior to the decision to rename the base again. That's why I changed my vote. We recently deleted an article about a winner of the silver star as non-notable. Bragg isn't any different except for the fact he conveniently has the same last name as someone else. Intothatdarkness 12:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
• A reasonable AfD nomination by the OP and I had to marinate on this for a bit, but ultimately landed on barely a Keep (but not a Weak Keep), as the subject is notable for two independent incidents, each of which is separately chronicled and each by multiple RS: the ambulance incident (which was reported three times: in a 2016 article by Reunions Magazine, in the 1969 Eisenhower book, and in a 1999 non-paid [staff written] obit in the Portland Press Herald [https://www.newspapers.com/image/849850357/?article=97259bac-8e2d-4691-9a92-63f878ac3274]); and, as the namesake of Fort Bragg (which was widely reported by dozens of sources in 2025). If only one of these two points of notability existed, the article would potentially fail WP:BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: Lots of news articles talking about him plus the book by Eisenhower. Definitely relevant and necessary.Kfein (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Well written and we have articles about obscure footballers with 12 page views every month, so deleting this would be quite hypocritical. Alexysun (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Why would someone try to delete this? I think it would just need to be uploaded again later, if it were deleted. Durindaljb (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, name well never be unstoried. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, but only a weak Keep. Delete and Merge I'm not convinced he's notable on his own if Fort Bragg hadn't been renamed again. The article isn't especially well written in my opinion, and would it really have generated a ton of page views if he hadn't been used to rename Fort Bragg? Doubtful. We recently deleted at least one article on a Silver Star recipient as not notable, and I have never been persuaded by the obituary equals notability argument. But we're here because his name coincides with the previous name of Fort Bragg. I would support a Merge of his information to the Fort Bragg article, but since that's not likely to happen we're stuck with this article. Intothatdarkness 13:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :He doesn't have to be worthy of an article on his own outside of the renaming. WP:1E is not WP:2E. He's now notable for more than one event—the renaming and the ambulance incident. Both have independent significant coverage in multiple sources. Therefore he meets GNG. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 13:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::If the ambulance event is so significant, why does it only have one line in the article? And why is there only one real source for it outside of what appear to be circular references? Sorry, I remain unconvinced about its broader notability outside of the renaming (which may be enough to retain the article). Intothatdarkness 14:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::I've been thinking about this, and have changed to Delete and Merge. Bragg simply isn't notable on his own, and if the fort's name hadn't have been changed odds are the vast majority would never have heard of him. Intothatdarkness 19:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep for the time being, per WP:RAPID and WP:SNOW. This can be revisited in about six months or so, when it is likely that we will be able to better assess whether this falls into the category of WP:BLP1E or WP:LASTING. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and delete. Bragg is notable for only one event, SECDEF Hegseth announcing that the military installation formerly named for Confederate general Braxton Bragg until prohibited by an act of Congress will again be named Fort Bragg, only this time honoring PFC Bragg. I disagree with {{u|Chetsford}}'s opinion that Bragg is notable for a second incident, the ambulance incident in WW2.

:*[https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/248312-35#overview Reunions Magazine] is not a news magazine, it's a publication that "helps family, class alumni and military reunions relive the past and make new memories, thereby helping in finding new ways to celebrate".

:*The ambulance incident is mentioned on one page of a 522-page book.

:*Bragg is one of 100,000–150,000 soldiers who received the Silver Star.

:*Obituary. He was a local businessman and served on local committees. Here's an example for the sources used to justify notability, an [https://lcnme.com/opinion/columns/nobleboro-history-revisited-to-save-one-room-schoolhouse/ opinion piece in the Lincoln County News], Maine, that mentions Bragg in this paragraph: {{tq|Serving with Selectman Bunker on the committee to preserve a one-room schoolhouse are George Dow, town historian; Evelyn Cross, former chairman of the Bicentennial Committee; Paul and Marjorie Sheldon, secretary for the committee; Roland and Barbara Bragg; Estelle Hall; Jack and Grayce Studley; Ruth and Harold Witham; Nettie Starkey; Leonard and Nancy Hartford; Adah and Tom Wriggins; Robert and Sally Dunbar; Wilder Hunt, school principal; and Robert Spear, chairman of the school board. Wilbur E. Erskine has been named an honorary member of the committee.}}

:Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Mztourist}}, was this discussion also listed in BLP-related discussions if there is such a thing (I don't often participate in deletion discussions). Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::BLP is for Biographies of Living People, and so that would be inappropriate. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 18:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Oops. Notability (people)? Or is that this discussion? Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

::::It's already categorized as Biographical, so it should be where it needs to be. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs} 19:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Mztourist. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Subject has received SIGCOV in reliable sources. Not 1E per User:Darth Stabro as the subject has received coverage independent and prior to the renaming of the fort. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and delete per nom. Enix150 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep the 1E rationale doesn’t really apply, it wasn’t during his life, and it’s resulted in retrospective coverage on his life. In any case I agree that getting a military base named after you is an honor enough to be similar to a medal. We have the material to write a decent article compliant with our policies. Why not? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:*I said WP:1E, not WP:BLP1E Mztourist (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:*:I did not say BLP1E. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::*So why you said "it wasn't during his life"? WP:1E doesn't say that the event has to be during the person's life.Mztourist (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:Keep Ludicrous nomination, very clearly has enough coverage to have an article, and having an army base named after you is a lasting situation rather than one event. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with Mztourist that this Bragg becoming the namesake of Fort Bragg is insufficient for WP:ANYBIO when Hegseth was clearly looking for the second-most famous veteran with this surname. However, all rules fall before the need to serve readers. Whereas articles on crimes often wield WP:1E to have the otherwise non-notable perpetrator and/or victim bios as sections, rather than distinct articles, the Fort Bragg article already has so much else to cover. Merging in this niche but sufficiently well-documented WWII military history seems likely to cramp the article. Whereas AfD often has "wait and see" arguments for whether the subject will gain notability to deserve an article in the future, I think retaining now makes sense, but if the base gets renamed by the next president, then the case for deletion would be strong. Chessrat calls the naming a lasting situation, but look how long "Fort Liberty" lasted. 🤷 ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 06:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete This was not an encyclopedic information before the Hegseth declaration to rename Fort of Liberty to Fort Bragg. The Trump's administration simply tried to denounced "woke" policies, but renamed this Fort with an other Bragg, agreeing that Braxton Bragg (the original Bragg) was not a national hero, so confirming that the "woke" revendications were ok. By going with a political agenda using this free encyclopedia, the techs will get the full power... because lot of people are going to look at the wikipedia page to acknowledge or not what this administration spread as fake news. (deleted upon wikipedia donation / non-donation threat policies) I can't see such a free source of information get politically hacked. I suggeste adding some information about this soldier on the Braxton Bragg wikipedia page, just to document the Trump's administration fraudulent renaming. Diane Richer 17:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Deletion discussions are based on Wikipedia policies, not about whether editors personally like or dislike the article subject (WP:IDLI). Promising to make or withhold monetary donations to the Wikimedia foundation has zero weight--negative weight, even--in a deletion discussion. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :TY to remind me the wikipedia policies.
• :I explained clearly why this article should be delete, in the first part.
• :Wikipedia policies should apply at the same level for some politic partis.
• :By renaming this fort, Fort Bragg, but no longer referring to General Braxton Bragg, the Trump administration is misleading citizens, leading its supporters to believe that it has restored the previous name, justified by its ideology of attacking DEI policies and considered woke. This soldier was not the subject of any Wikipedia page before this announcement by Heghset. There is therefore no reason to believe that this soldier had any "importance" in American history and certainly does not deserve to have a Wikipedia page dedicated to him.
• :If I wrote about my monetary donation, is also to denounce how billionaires can use their money to influence people.
• :It is to help wikipedia contributors to get the big picture of the "problem"
• :Thank you.
• :And for those who think lot of threat of non-donate come from people who are never donate, here is the email I received
• :"Dear Diane,
• : Thank you so much for your CA$XXXXX.00 donation to support Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. With this support, you help strengthen our nonprofit mission to ensure people everywhere can access the information they need, whenever they need it, for free.
• : Wikipedia only works because of the hundreds of thousands of humans who dedicate their time and energy to making it one of the most trusted sources of information online. The tireless efforts of these volunteers are what makes this website invaluable to billions of readers worldwide. This is even more important today with the changes in technology and artificial intelligence shaping our world.
• : So the next time you visit Wikipedia, I hope you take pride in knowing that you help make this possible. Wikipedia is a collective labor of love, and you’re a part of it. Thank you again for your dedication to this remarkable mission.
• : With gratitude,
• : Maryana Iskander
• : CEO, Wikimedia Foundation"
• :Perhaps it is more credible now ?
• :So people can laugh as much as they want.... even if this is not for many an "argument" in this case, I repeat that billionaires Hijacked Wikipedia's Mission and nobody seem to have problem with this money power.
• :I delete the phrase in my first comment about the donation because you guys told me it doesn't respect the wikipedia policies, but seriously, be consistent for everyone. Failing to recognize that this page is only intended to legitimize Republican toponymy policies is just as damaging to Wikipedia's reputation. Diane Richer (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• :TY to remind me the wikipedia policies. I explained clearly why this article should be delete, in the first part. Wikipedia policies should apply at the same level for some politic partis. By renaming this fort, Fort Bragg, but no longer referring to General Braxton Bragg, the Trump administration is misleading citizens, leading its supporters to believe that it has restored the previous name, justified by its ideology of attacking DEI policies and considered woke. This soldier was not the subject of any Wikipedia page before this announcement by Heghset. There is therefore no reason to believe that this soldier had any "importance" in American history and certainly does not deserve to have a Wikipedia page dedicated to him. If I wrote about my monetary donation, is also to denounce how billionaires can use their money to influence people. It is to help wikipedia contributors to get the big picture of the "problem". Diane Richer

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diane Richer (talk • contribs) 18:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Fulfils WP:GNG, SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO through his military awards. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to other arguments set out above, I invoke WP:IAR; something I am generally extremely reluctant to do: because readers will want to learn about him. They can draw their own conclusions as to why he was chosen to be the new namesake of Fort Bragg. Narky Blert (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep having a major US military installation named for a person makes them notable, even if that person was of doubtful notability before. I am here because I read the article about the fort being renamed and searched Wikipedia for the article on Roland Bragg. I imagine there will be articles / opinion pieces on the renaming and assume they will be prominently incorporated into the article in a "Fort Bragg Naming Controversy" or similarly named (sub)section. The article should provide context to the reader and include details mentioned here, like the large number of Silver Star recipients in WWII, or the ambulance incident only meriting one page in a large book. - Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Merge to the base article. GNG and SIGCOV are in the context of the base naming, not the man himself who is only mentioned at all because of the former. The salient points, e.g. service record and such, can be included in a paragraph or two at the base article. Zaathras (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, meets GNG etc. per above. The naming of the Fort, his heroism with the ambulance, and his mention in John Eisenhower's 1959 book are all plenty notable. Expected this to be snow closed a couple days ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• :SNOW refers to AfD (or analogous) decisions that are so uncontroversial that basically all commenters agree on what should be done, or not done; this case is hardly that. Arlo James Barnes 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Having read the discussion and some of the sources I think Merge with Fort Bragg is the most appropriate option. There is a case for a weak keep but I don't ultimately think there's enough meat on those bones for a full article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge per excellent nomination. Simonm223 and Diane Richer also express it well. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Fort Bragg. Clearly is not INDEPENDENTLY notable of Fort Bragg. _pbp 18:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The naming makes him notable, as ridiculous as the circumstances to such a renaming were. Yes, some biographical information can be included in the fort's own article, but deleting this article would just make his previously local-only notability less known. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: per C of E and ViridianPenguin. E_F⁵ 21:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a SNOW keep. While there may have been a 1E case had there been zero SIGCOV in RSs pre-2025, that's not the case. Anyone who's making a political case is critically misunderstanding what constitutes Wikipedia's notability policy for people. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• :Hardly a snow close. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per ANYBIO, (re)naming of Fort Bragg counts. While most RS for the article are local news, and probably wouldn't have supported an article without the tentpegs of ambulance and fort, they suffice in this case. Eisenhower book also tends to indicate notability, since it indicates notability beyond initial decoration. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment the relevant part of WP:1E states that "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." There is no hard rule that we can't create an article about a person famous about one event, though I don't have a strong opinion about whether Braggs passes this bar. Rusalkii (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ANYBIO. This person was awarded many times, and the facts about this are supported by many reliable sources. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The largest military installation in the U.S. is named after him, which makes him clearly notable. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:10, 20 February 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.