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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bechtold (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)

The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject (a living person), they only refer to her in passing in her role as a Military judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of her as either a person or in her official role. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP and being a Colonel also fails WP:SOLDIER DBigXray 06:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The sources offered are routine personnel announcements, trivial mentions and court decisions the subject herself wrote, making them WP:PRIMARY. None of the usual Google searches turned up anything useful. The best I found was yet another trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom and per Msnicki--they've already adequately covered the case in my opinion. Gamble2Win (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This nomination asserts the article lapses from the guideline WP:Notability (people) (aka WP:BIO). WP:BIO has a subsection devoted to more relaxed criteria for individuals who hold a national office, like legislators -- or judges -- WP:Notability (people)#Politicians. Whether WP:Notability (people)#Politicians applied to Bechtold was discussed, at length, during the first AFD. The closing administrator wrote:

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio.

Usually, when someone considers nominating an article for deletion a second time, they make sure they are nominating it for deletion for a new reason, or at least acknowledges the previous discussion, and says why they think that discussion was not sufficient.

I agree with the original concluding administrator, I think the wording of WP:Notability (people)#Politicians -- the relevant subsection of WP:BIO -- is pretty clear. I think it says individuals who hold a national office, are notable if RS confirm they hold that office.

The nomination states the article does not comply with WP:BLP. I would appreciate it if how it did not comply with BLP could be spelled out.

With regard to the assertion that according to WP:SOLDIER Colonels aren`t inherently notable. Well, since WP:Notability (people)#Politicians says national level judges, like appellate judges, are inherently notable, and WP:Notability (people)#Politicians is a guideline, while WP:SOLDIER is an essay, I suggest what SOLDIER says is not relevant. Geo Swan (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the subject is not a Politician, but a soldier. The creator Geo Swan's arguement of WP:POLITICIAN also fails on "the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", because there is no coverage of the subject other than taking the name in the articles on proceedings. WP:SOLDIER is still relevant here as the subject is from military--DBigXray 15:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• She was a soldier, but is a judge/politician. Having been a soldier does not preclude her or any other veteran from meeting the notability guidelines of any other section, whether they met WP:Soldier or not. Dru of Id (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. What I mean is the Article does not qualify notability guidelines of Soldier or a politician. --DBigXray 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please be more careful to refrain from referring to essays like WP:SOLDIER as if they were guidelines or policies. Essays may be a minority opinion, so it is a huge mistake to phrase references to them as if they were a binding guideline or policy.

  I suggest the base comment here is based on a misconception. WP:POLITICIAN has three numbered points, that distinguish between LOCAL office holders and NATIONAL office holders. It makes clear in the 3rd numbered point that LOCAL office holders have to meet all the regular notability criteria. This confirmed for me that when RS confirm an individual holds a NATIONAL office this is sufficient to establish their notability. Note the essay WP:SOLDIER also say a certain small class of individuals are notable solely for the office they hold. WP:SOLDIER says flag officers are notable for the office they hold. Geo Swan (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone see if [1] is a viable replacement for the first reference deadlink? Dru of Id (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, although the subject is a member of a notable judicial body, the subject herself is not notable per WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. There isn't significant coverage of the subject herself where she is the primary subject of the source, additionally she is primarily a JAG Officer and not a politician and as such SOLDIER is relevant.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please explain why you think the advice in the essay WP:SOLDIER is relevant? What do you think the relationship between WP:Notability (WP:GNG points to a subsection of WP:Notability) and WP:POLITICIAN (WP:POLITICIAN points to a subsection of WP:Notability (people))?? Other than a sidebar WP:Notability does not mention any other notability guidelines. I checked some of the other notability guidelines mentioned in the sidebar. WP:Notability (academics) specifically says this:

This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.

Now WP:Notability (academics) isn`t relevant here. But it raises the important question -- do the more specific notability guideline amend and supercede more general ones? Why have any additional more specific notability guidelines if they don`t amend and supercede WP:Notability? Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject does not pass WP:GNG AND WP:SOLDIER, as for this specific discussion of notability there is not need to discuss whether one supersedes another as it is my opinon that the subject has not received significant coverage as mentioned in GNG (a more general notability guideline) to be considered notable. Additionally the subject does not pass any of the categories stated in SOLDIER. Moreover I do not see the position, as others may, as a judge in a possibly notable military judicial body to warrant the judges notability due to POLITICIAN. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR Keep- WP:Soldier is only relevant in that its suggestions for notability have not been met, and no one here has even suggested they have. Judges fall under WP:Politician, and national level appellate judges have by common outcomes been determined to pass, whether associated with the military or not. The only area the article fails, and if nothing is available offline will continue to fail, is in-depth coverage. Add Bosnia to the list of deployments, it's still insufficient. Wikipedia still recognizes the position. Dru of Id (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge) argues otherwise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which closed 17 hours before my comment, and which had not been raised in this discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a general comment, WP:BLP clearly trumps any application of IAR in instances where this is being used to get around a lack of references. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know the exact status of the USCMCR, but I'm pretty sure it falls somewhere in "international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". So even if a high military court is below national office, she would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Also, for those of you talking about one guideline/policy superceding another one, there is no superceding, there is no policy that "trumps" another one. They are all relevant, and meeting only one criteria in one notability guideline means that the article should be kept. Failing one guideline does not mean an article should be deleted. It must fail all of them.  The Steve  08:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge) demonstrated that members of this court attract little coverage in reliable sources, so there appears to be no reason at all to assume that they're notable, especially given that this is a BLP. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2012 (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.