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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rosenkranz[edit]

Keith Rosenkranz (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)

He fails WP:SOLDIER and I don't believe he passes WP:AUTHOR with just one book. The sources in this article are not reliable - even the NYT article gives his personal story, as do the interviews. There is some news coverage around the release of his book but I don't believe his notable Gbawden (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 14:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fails WP:SOLDIER - The carreer as a soldier is not notable in itselve. The 3 interviews are not sufficient to state that subject is recognized by his peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. -- Taketa (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to keep. Clarityfiend provides sufficient sources, combined with sources provided on the first nomination, to fulfil general notabilitu criteria. -- Taketa (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Undecided. He fails SOLDIER, but his book's gotten some favorable reviews,[1][2] he gets a few paragraphs about his post-military career in the Washington Post and USA Today, and there's an NPR interview.[3]. There's also this long article, the first half about him, by the Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service,[4] (HighBeam sub. probably needed) and he seems to be considered some sort of aviation expert in several accidents just because he's a veteran Delta Airlines pilot.[5][6] Definite delete for his wingman "Gonzo" Guildenstern, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 00:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, although the subject themselves does not appear to have met WP:GNG, he does fall under notable per WP:AUTHOR, as shown by the sources provided by • Gene93k.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' I'm not seeing significant coverage in the articles I can see readily, the Washington Post, and USA Today articles aren't really about Rosenkrantz, and other voices are heard. The New York Times piece is by Rosenkrantz - though it's more about his experience of taking amphetamine on missions than an analysis of Tarnak Farm, if the article stays that could do with re-phrasing - but is that RS? It's not a third party account. The CNN interviews aren't extensive - his opinions are being sought but not in depth. Also telling for me is that since 2007, all we have in the article on this person is - he flew for the air force, he wrote a book, he flew for Delta. Are we looking at a permanent stub? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2014 (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.