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. per WP:SNOW. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianus Johannes Lemmens (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)

Highly speculative article about authors father with clear inaccuracies. Sources don't back up what is claimed. WP:OR and fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) The Banner talk 09:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:: This article is in my view not - speculative - and I was not the original author - see view history ! The problem is that Mr. The Banner (his pseudonym indicates he is English but he is actually Dutch) does not read the references and/or the Links to the pages but goes immediately on the attack which he has also got a history of on the Dutch wikipedia. This article has a tremendous amount of references and Links mentioned apart from the fact that the person the page is about was decorated with a WW2 war medal - the OHK !

Also notice that Mr. The Banner has not contributed any information or correction to this article - only the request to delete it without any proper reasons? The least he could do is let us know what he thinks are the speculative parts??Glemmens1940 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:::A lot of people contributed to this article after the initial "multiple issues" notification was put on the article. A lot of references have been added and pictures that support the claims made in the article. I don't see why this article is nominated for deletion. Menke66 (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's because the nominator doesn't believe the subject passes the general notability guideline. Stalwart111 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as there is plain nonsense in the article, like the bravery medals, the article is too unreliable to stay. And even his usual sidekick Menke should by now know that the War Commemorative Cross was not given for bravery, but for being at a place when things got hot. The Banner talk 12:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are errors in an article, we address that by correcting the article and not be deleting it - and if there are disagreements about the content, we seek consensus on the article talk page, and then use the WP:DR process if that cannot be achieved. It may be that this article should be deleted for notability reasons (I make no judgment on that at this point) but it will not be deleted just for containing factual inaccuracies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is factual inaccuracies in combination with WP:COI. The Banner talk 14:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Boing! - If the factual inaccuracies lie in the claims of notability, that will quickly lead to deletion.--v/r - TP 14:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed - hence my use of the word "just", meaning that factual inaccuracy alone is not enough. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This could be a good article. The Career section needs to pov-edited, and the matter of the medals clarified, but it looks sound.--Auric talk 11:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It could be a good article, but not in an encyclopaedia! The subject has no claim to notability that I can see from the article - along with countless thousands of others during the Second World War he was in a merchant ship, he was a prisoner, etc etc. Nothing at all remarkable is suggested to make him worth an article but thousands of others not. There are attempts to give notability by association ("the family was taken by the British HMS Loch Killisport (K628) on which Prince Philip served") or to suggest involvement in significant events ("On 7th December 1942 , the same day as the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the Netherlands declared war to Japan..."). As I said, it could be a good article and an interesting read, but then so could my grandfather's experience as an airman in the RAF! Along with everyone else's. But notability is not here. There is also the considerable problem of COI editing.Emeraude (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, the same article was deleted from the Dutch language Wikipedia on 26 March (see this). Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Emeraude basically. I have probably half-a-dozen direct and distant relatives who would be no more or less notable than the subject. As for specific guidelines, I certainly don't think he would pass WP:SOLDIER, for example. The sources are a combination of WP:PRIMARY documents (internment records, obituaries, service records, etc) and coverage of things with which the subject had some interaction, though the sources don't mention the subject at all. That's not to say he wasn't there or didn't experience those things, but they don't constitute significant coverage of the subject. On that basis, I can't see how the subject could pass WP:GNG. The newspaper clipping that mentions his exam is exactly that - a passing mention with a list of others; hardly significant coverage. An important piece of family history, no doubt, but not the stuff of an encyclopaedia. Stalwart111 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• One of the issues at stake at the dutch written wikipedia was that Glemmens1940 claimed his father to have received the Cross of Merit. That claim couldn't be verified though. Suddenly it appears here he received the War Commemorative Cross (nl:Oorlogsherinneringskruis) instead, but this was NOT a medal for (individual) bravery - which of course doesn't mean Lemmens wasn't brave or anything the like. Yet, receiving this medal can't be deemed the singular event which makes Lemmens notable. Notum-sit (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• PS1 the Talk page of the deleted dutch article is still intact: nl:Overleg:Adrianus_Johannes_Lemmens. Several issues were addressed there to get clarified which Glemmens1940 never cared to answer. Notum-sit (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• PS2 the clasp JAVA-ZEE 1941-1942 doesn't refer uniquely to the Battle of the Java Sea (which took place on February 27 1942 and following days) but to a wider range of events and time. Sofar no evidence has been presented that Lemmens was present at the battle itself. Notum-sit (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And even if he were, it would not confer notability. Emeraude (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per Stalwart and lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The chief claim of notability is the War Commemorative Cross. My research into the War Commemorative Cross results in much the same conclusion as Notum-sit. The medal is awarded to anyone who sees combat and there are different variations depending on what their duties were. But I saw nothing that said "bravery" outside the normal bravery of any soldier. This cross seems to equate to the Bronze Star Medal. All together, this bio fails WP:MILNG. Between the deletion discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia and here, I see some battle ground behaviors (accusations of cliques). It seems to me that Glemmens1940 is seeking a memorial for his father and fabricating medals (Cross of Merit on Dutch Wikipedia).--v/r - TP 14:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've trimmed some of the irrelevant and disallowed links and references, but DGG sums it up correctly. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject is clearly not notable; editor has a clear conflict of interest; article is written in a very subjective way; Wikipedia is not the place for him to honor his father. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 21:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Familypedia might be a good place.--Auric talk 22:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea - a better option than one of the many family-tree-style options available. But do you still think this should be kept or is your suggestion an alternate solution? Stalwart111 23:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the problems can be dealt with. If not (and this is seeming increasingly unlikely) the creator should copy it there.--Auric talk 00:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough - that makes sense. Cheers, Stalwart111 02:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Stories of war veterans like this should certainly be preserved somewhere, but Wikipedia is not the right place unless there is sufficient notability shown - and this one really does not appear to have that notability. I would urge the author to preserve it elsewhere - perhaps, as had been suggested, on a genealogy website? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per NOT MEMORIAL. Familypedia is a good alternative and thanks to Auric for pointing it out. MarnetteD | Talk 15:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Held neither a rank nor a decoration usually considered to give "automatic" right of inclusion and doesn't seem to be notable for anything specific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although his wartime experience is interesting, I have only found a handful of passing mentions in non-primary reliable sources with no sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Furthermore, the few passing mentions, if added up together do not make significant coverage; therefore the subject is not notable per WP:ANYBIO. As for awards/decorations, the subject is not notable as defined by WP:SOLDIER, as the verified award/decoration is not a high level award/medal/decoration for individual act(s) of valor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete No claim of notability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the information now in the article were set out in reliable sources, then I could see how the topic could meet WP:GNG. However, the information sourced in the article is historic information not directly connected to Lemmens life. For example, "The Dutch East Indies inhabitants promptly nicknamed the Japanese the yellow faces." is generic history information as it was not Lemmens who promptly nicknamed the Japanese the yellow faces. The amount of source information available specific to Lemmens life seems to be the same as would be available for anyone having war service and receiving a medallion for general war operations with a r specific war action. The article contains original research by reading too much in his Internment card. The article also relies on a "Newspaper of 1932". Here, Menke66 wrote File:Newspaper where Lemmens is mentioned when he received his exam.jpg is "a copy of a digital newspaper of 1929, so free of copyright" and "Date 1929", but the article says "1932" and here, Menke66 posted "Newspaper of 1932". Overall, there is not enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand alone article. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: By now I have received several (5) threatening e-mails with legal/police action to start when the article is deleted. It was demanded that the article would be restored to the version of his sidekick Menke on 2 April 2013. I am not impressed by this, so the closing administrator should do what is best for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 12:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I have revoked his ability to use the Wikipedia email system -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've sent you an email too -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball delete. Everything the nominator said is true. Non-notable individual and strong WP:COI issues throughout. Requesting an admin close this per WP:SNOW. – Richard BB 12:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not seem to meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia is a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2013 (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.