Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alain Guimond

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The assertion that "the senior ranker of major armies is notable" isn't backed up by any policy or guideline. Sandstein 10:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Alain Guimond

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Alain Guimond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No indication or evidence that he meets notability requirements of WP:MILPEOPLE or WP:GNG. PKT(alk) 11:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 11:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 11:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Sigh. This person is the Sergeant Major of the Canadian Army so meets WP:SOLDIER. While you're at it you might want to nominate Daniel A. Dailey as well Gbawden (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Which criterion of WP:SOLDIER (which is the same as WP:MILPEOPLE) does he meet, exactly?....PKT(alk) 12:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. The claimed position could get him an article if he could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it, but it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to an article that's referenced exclusively to his own primary source staff profile on the website of his own employer (which is never notability-assisting sourcing in and of itself for anybody.) Notability standards are not cleared by what the article says — they're cleared by how well the article references what it says, but the referencing here isn't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Delete. While being the de-facto union leader (or some sort of representative) for all enlisted men could be a notable position (even though this is not explicitly stated in SOLDIER - this is a one of a kind position per service - it sort of could be presumed notable) - SOLDIER is about presume notability. The article is presently sourced to the Canadian army website. Beyond that, in my BEFORE, I found approx. 13 news articles in which he is mentioned in a passing manner (usually along side an officer), sometimes with a photo - but nothing INDEPTH (I did find a different Alain Guimond - [1] - a commando suffering from PTSD - but nothing on this guy).Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. We have generally assumed that the senior ranker of major armies is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 8 June 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.