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. Consensus is that notability is not established and also that, in this form, this is a personal memorial page inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  Sandstein  05:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Novack[edit]

Patrick M. Novack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete. The author has put a lot of effort into this biography, which is a tribute page to his father. Novack's service as a veteran and a police officer does not demonstrate the notability required for an article in Wikipedia (WP:BIO). Community service and political activity are admirable but not notable. WWGB (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, as the author, I disagree. Several reasons: 1.) The article has been up for less than 2 and a half hours, it's 4:00 in the morning, and I'm not finished with it yet. 2.) While I am the son of the subject of the article, I am making a determined effort to remove any POV issues and watch out for COI problems. I would be happy to address any specifics. 3.) I take exception to someone not from this area (The Twin Cities Metro Area) saying that an individual is not "notable". With all due respect to WWGB, personally I feel that any individual that goes into combat, wins the country's third and fourth highest honor for heroism under fire and is wounded in the process - comes home to become a police officer and is again commended and decorated for heroism - works for 25 years in his community training it's youth at several levels to become leaders and better people - works with the government to track down and capture terrorists and terrorist resources after 9/11 - and has members of the United States Congress at the funeral could be considered "notable". Perhaps not "world renowned"...but certainly "notable". According to Outstanding Young Men of America this person was "Notable" in 1982, and it was so published. I appreciate the effort to make this a better article, and I fully intend on adding more detail where necessary. For example, when I get clear copies of the letter from Representative Ramstad and the Certificate he sent along with the flag I'll post them. Rather than recommend deletion as a "tribute", please advise to make it more encyclopedic.Rapier1 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the policies spelled out by WWGB, I have to say that Patrick Novack is "notable" based on the following:

Any biography

• The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Using that set of criteria, Patrick Novack is "notable" not simply for military service, but for having been nominated for, and recieved, Silver and Bronze Star - the nation's third and fourth highest awards for heroism in combat, multiple times.Rapier1 (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the criteria stated above. Seems to pass as notable in my view. Paul75 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If the article wants to stick around, it has to make a better case than "locally well known". Hairhorn (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that wording has been removed entirely. Rapier1 (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, it's not just the wording that's the issue... Hairhorn (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hairhorn is correct, "locally well-known" doesn't cut it. Wikipedia has specific criteria for inclusion at WP:BIO and there is not significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I don't believe that his military medals qualify under WP:BIO but I will wait until others weigh in on this specific issue before giving an opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend withdrawing Nomination on the basis of author's remarks, and fairly detailed coverage between the article discussing his death: [1] and the obituary: [2], and this article: [3]. We have to keep in mind too that for people like this, there are often many sources available that may not be available on the internet--and because of the possibility of this, it strikes me as entirely inappropriate to nominate an article for deletion so quickly, especially when there are already some sources that are easy to find and much of the information in place is verifiable. If this article stands for several months and there are still concerns about notability and sourcing, I would not object to re-opening a discussion to delete it. Based on what I see, I would argue to Keep the article even as-is. But I think more importantly, the nominator jumped the gun here. Deleting an article that has just been created, when the author is still working on it, hardly seems constructive except in the most blatant cases of abuse or spam. Cazort (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unlikely that additional sources to establish notability are going to materialize. If they exist, let them be shown now. It's not like I didn't look before commenting. Drawn Some (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User space exists so that editors can work on articles that may fail inclusion criteria without being bothered. Anything put in article space is fair game, IMHO. Vicenarian (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to delete the article on the grounds that it should be worked on in userspace before establishing notability, then the proper way to nominate it for deletion is to recommend moving it to userspace in the nomination. I also think that posting some talk on the author's page explaining what is going on is warranted (more than just the template as was done in this case). This is more respectful to the author of the article and is ultimately more constructive. I would support userifying this article before deleting it. And I still maintain that this nomination was inappropriate and should be withdrawn, whether or not the topic is notable. Cazort (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really necessary to say "move to user space" in a nomination, because any deleted article can be userfied after deletion by a willing admin. And yes, the creator should be notified, which I think he was? And what makes a nomination "inappropriate"? We nominate and discuss on these pages so that disagreements can be sorted out and a consensus reached. That's just what we're doing here, now. Unless an article is nominated in bad faith or to be disruptive, I see no nomination as "inappropriate." Vicenarian (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see nominating an article such as this for deletion, so quickly, and while the author is still working on it, as highly disruptive and bordering on a bad faith nomination. Such action would be justified when the case for deletion is so clear-cut that there would be an overwhelming consensus to delete, as in when no sources exist to verify any of the content, when there are copyvio issues, or when it's blatant spam. But this case is marginal/controversial enough that such a speedy nomination strikes me as highly disruptive. Cazort (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly understandable and I sympathize with the sentiment. However, this goes to a deep and long-standing disagreement between editors and this isn't really the place to discuss it. (I myself am now guilty of discussing this here, I know.) Merits of deletion of this article only belong here. Vicenarian (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Neutral. I'm pretty sure these military medals are not cause for inclusion per WP:BIO. Unless notability beyond "locally well known" can be established, I'd like to note that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Vicenarian (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just want to clarify your opinion (Also keeping in mind that "notability" does not necessarily equal "fame", according to Wikipedia policy) - and I understand that Wikipedia is not a memorial. According to the stated "notability" policy, someone is "notable" for geting naked for a photoshoot and being Playmate of the Month, but you do not consider a person "notable" for being awarded multiple awards for heroism and bravery in combat over the course of several years. Have I stated that accurately? Rapier1 (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. All I am saying is that despite the medals the subject earned, the article does not appear to fall within the criteria as stated in WP:BIO. I make no comment regarding the comparative merits of including a solider versus a Playmate. This is not the forum to do so. Thank you. Vicenarian (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't simply that he was a "soldier", my point is that Wiki policy specifically states that a person is "notable" is they have "received a notable award or honor", and that if being a Playmate of the Month qualifies (as is specifically stated), then being awarded multiple awards for heroism and bravery in combat should qualify as well. After all, is not "received a notable award or honor" a stated criterion? They don't hand out those pretty ribbons for perfect attendance. Rapier1 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point - I think it would help the case for keeping this article if the medals received can be established as "notable awards" in line with WP:BIO. I am uncertain as to exactly what awards are meant to fall into that category, but I think we're talking such notable awards as the Nobel, Pulitzer, PEN/Faulkner, Congressional Medal of Honor, etc etc. This point, however, is definitely debatable. Now as to the Playmate argument, that is spurious, because every article is considered on its own merits, and the place to discuss the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion is on that page's talk page. And please, don't take any of this personally. This is just a discussion of the merits of including this article in Wikipedia based on current agreed inclusion guidelines, not over whether the subject was a great man or not - as I am sure he was. Vicenarian (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not being more clear, and thank you for clarifying the point. I wasn't trying to disparage the "Playmate of the Month" achievement, nor was I trying to make a spurious or nonsensical argument. I was merely pointing out the fact that this particular achievement has already been specifically singled out in the Wikipedia policies as making one "notable", and this wasn't necessarily the pinnacle of that genre's achievement scale (i.e. Playmate of the Year, All-Time List, etc...). Obviously a Medal of Honor winner is "notable", and I am positing the argument that "notability" should extend down at least as far as those winning the Distinguished Service Cross, and the Silver Star - those being the first, second and third most prestigious awards given by the United States Army. If an argument is to be made for a "cutoff point", if you will, I would place it at the level of the Bronze Star - although if it were awarded multiple times (but only with the combat-V designation) I would have to side on the course of "notable". Simply recieving a commendation for good service would not make one "notable", but when a person is specifically cited for "Heroism" in combat, I feel that counts. Numorous and repeated articles in national forums telling the stories of soldiers that have earned the award in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last few years can be found because it is a rare occurance (See article on Leigh Ann Hester). The same event happening in the 60's should be considered no less "notable", simply because we no longer have access to the media accounts. Thanks for your points! Rapier1 (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good case. I am not well enough versed on this topic, so I am going to let the others here comment. I'm moving my position to neutral. Vicenarian (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If coverage from the time could be found, it would help your case. Not guaranteeing it will pass even then, but you'll have a stronger leg to stand on. As the article stands write now, the awards aren't even specifically documented we're relying on a family submitted obit. Which unfortunately means, they aren't reliably documented at all. Your best bet would be to try Newspaper Archive and see if they have anything for the subject's military and police careers. As far as a threshold of awards, almost nobody doubts the MOH or equivalent as intrinsically notable. I personally won't vote against anyone documented with one of the Crosses, but even that isn't consensus. There's almost no chance of having it reach the Silver Star level as an autopass. Horrorshowj (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obituary coverage with brief local activity snippets, in local newspapers doesn't establish notability (unless such activity by itself is notable). Also, working in the police dept or contracting with DoD etc don't make one notable. Members of Congress attending the funeral fails the notability test too, connections to prominent people is explicitly excluded by WP:Bio invalid criteria . The only fact that could possibly establish notability may be the honors - Silver stars, but even that, I'm not sure that they qualify per WP:BIO -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't about being famous, it's about being documented. Much of the content of this article is verifiable in reliable sources. As far as I'm concerned, actually receiving any sort of military awards, or any achievements, is irrelevant--it's whether we can find sources to document whatever material is on the article, and whether there's much of an article left once we reduce it to. I'm seeing a fair amount of content that is well-sourced. So what if he's not the most important guy? That's not what notability is about. Cazort (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability and verifiability are different. Verifiability is a component of notability. In this particular case, the claims are mostly verifiable, but not notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to see the status of the awards clarified - I'm totally at sea with American honours. Possibly one or two more independent references, but I feel a certain notability has been established so far. (Enough for me to be moving punctuation, which I don't bother doing in articles I can't see a future for.) Peridon (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are awards for actions in military service just like every country has, it's not comparable to the British honours system. I don't know if they qualify under WP:BIO or not and that is why I withheld my opinion for the time being. Drawn Some (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the discussion above regarding United States Army commendations, our Medal of Honor is the rough equivalent of the British Victoria Cross, The Medal of Freedom would be it's civilian equivalent and comperable to the George Cross. Since there is no peerage in the States things get a little murky, because all of the British Orders are bypassed when dealing with American order of precedence. The closest equivalent to the American Silver Star would be the British Military Cross. The Bronze Star, as long as it is accompanied by the combat-V (valor) designation would likely be most similar to the British Mentioned in Despatches, if I understand the system properly. It is fourth in the American order of precedence. Hope this helps! Rapier1 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Much clearer. I'll go for Keep following that. Peridon (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel that this person is possibly notable and that the article should be given more time to be developed. I would like to see more information in the article about how the subject came to earn (for want of a better term) his service decorations. Perhaps links to the official citations (if available), like we sometimes do to the London Gazette, might help make the article more encyclopedic. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is nothing that indicates notability in terms of an encyclopedia. the highest military award is third level, under the medal of honor and the DSC's, and we do not and should not normally consider that notable by itself. DGG (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There exist several entries for "notable people" under the Silver Star listing that were awarded no higher than the Silver Star while in military Uniform, and did nothing else of note in their careers, so I will dispute this fact. Especially given the fact that later in his career he was awarded the highest honor a Jaycee can earn, and the highest award given to a Minneapolis Officer. Rapier1 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people on that list are notable for reasons other than their Silver Stars, and if there are some for whom the decoration is the only claim of notability, I would be voting to delete them too. "Other stuff exists" is an argument that is generally to be avoided in AFD discussions. I don't believe that internal awards in organisations like the Jaycees or the police department meet the criteria for notable awards. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see how the the burden of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" has been met here. Reference 2 [4] doesn't mention Novack, and the melissadata.com and gravelocator.com refences [5][6] [7] are just directory listings which do nothing to establish notability (the first of these doesn't mention Novack's name, either). The zoominfo reference confirms that he ran in a local election, but that doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria for inclusion. I agree with DGG that the we don't normally accept 3rd level military awards as establishing notability. Novack sounds like a genuinely good and honourable person who died way too soon, but that doesn't make him notable enough to meet Wikipedia's criteria. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources you cited here do not do anything to establish notability. I think the other sources do, although I understand that different editors have different standards and I think that's ok. Cazort (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct linkage, but the melissadata referance lists to the contact information of the organization itself, which can confirm the data in the article. There is no requirement for the information to be listed online. Rapier1 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not really just an issue of the sourcing - even if the sourcing were perfect, I don't think the fact that he worked with the Coon Rapids Snowflake Association or the fact that his family created a memorial scholarship fund in his name do anything to confirm notability, as far as inclusion in Wikipedia is concerned. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete DGG confirms what I suspected regarding these medals being insufficient as awards as discussed above in my comments. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm returning my position to delete after reading the discussion regarding the medals being insufficient to sustain notability own their own. Without that, the burden of significant coverage in secondary sources has not be met, per WP:BIO. See my other comments above. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am with the others here that this may have been a wonderful person but he doesn't fit with the flow of Wikipedia's process. There is also a significant financial COI with the foundation listed at the end of the article as it pertains to the author. Redtree2468 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No financial COI exists. I am the founder and President of the non-profit scholarship foundation, but the Foundation has no paid salaries, including myself. Rapier1 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review WP:COI, it is best to be up-front with a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. Drawn Some (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, there is no COI. I stated clearly that the Foundation was founded by the son of the subject, I explained that the money goes to scholarships, and I stated who is getting the scholarship, and I sourced the State information so anybody that wants to can verify it with a phone call. I (who happen to be said son) am not paid to do it...in fact it costs me time and money every year. Where is the conflict of interest? There seems to be a bit of a bias here for online sources. I believe the Wiki policies clearly state that they are "by no means necessary". I gave the information, if anybody cares so much, pick up the bloody phone Rapier1 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain calm, review the policy, a conflict of interest doesn't have to be financial. Being related to someone means you have a conflict of interest, it doesn't mean you're evil. What you have to say is still valid. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay cool. WP:COI suggests dealing with apparent conflicts of interest by openly declaring your interest on the talk page - saying that you, this particular editor, are the subject's son and president of a foundation in his name, but that you will endeavor to make all edits from a neutral standpoint. That will go a long way towards others having confidence in your edits. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 01:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my growing frustration, but I did clearly state these facts at the beginning of this page, where I was under the impression discussion was supposed to occur to keep this article out of the trash. I would be happy to repeat this in the "disscussiion" section of the article if this would satisfy. In the meantime, let me repeat a point about Redtree's comment made there about the Foundation being a one-time event: 'You are mistaken sir. The Foundation awarded a scholarship after it's designation as well. Not a one-time shot. We recieved no valid requests last year (don't ask why, but the only requests came from foreign countries - I guess kids think community service is hard), and there has not been an award this year because the school year is not over yet.' Rapier1 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nationally the Silver Star is either 7th or 11th, but definitely not 3rd.[8]. Depends on if y the 4 flavors of Distinguished Service Medal are considered the same award or not. Better url for #4. [9] Brief mention [10] Few more returns [11] [12]. None of those seem particularly notable. He was accomplished, and seems like a great guy, but I don't think the article passes WP:GNG.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The "Distinguished Service" medals are all differant flavors of the same thing at the same level. Wikipedia's own article on the Silver Star confirms that it is overall the thirds highest ranking, and the third for valor in combat. Rapier1 (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I believe that the Silver Star is third in the US honours and awards system. The external link that is cited above by Horrorshow actually does state that it is the third highest US award for 'combat valour'. It does not state that it is 7th or 11th. Please look at this link to confirm this [13]. Likewise, as Rapier1 states, the wikipedia article also states that it is third highest. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the WP article states that it is third highest within service , MOH is above the services. There are 3 separate crosses (DSC, NC, AFC), Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Transportation Distinguished Service Medal, and 4 varieties of the Distinguished Service Medal above the Silver star. It is the 4th or 5th highest within any individual branch, however, nationally it is behind the higher ranking awards of other services. I'm uncertain of what number it is, in total, because I don't know if being awarded as DSM from two branches would be displayed as two separate medals or a star/leaf for a second award in the current branch. Nitpicky, but Rapier's claim that it is the third highest nationally is wrong.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a side argument, and if Horrorshowj really wants to debate it we should move it over to the main Silver Star page, but I will state this here in an attempt to end it before it escalates: According to 'Chapter 3, Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards)25 February 1995', the Distinguished Service Cross is awarded 'to a person who while serving in any capacity with the Army, distinguished himself or herself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of a Medal of Honor; while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing or foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing Armed Force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of life so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his or her comrades.". The Distinguished Service Medal is equivalent in precedence, but is awarded for activities that do not entail valor. 'b. The Distinguished Service Medal is awarded to any person who while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, has distinguished himself or herself by exceptionally meritorious service to the Government in a duty of great responsibility. The performance must be such as to merit recognition for service which is clearly exceptional. Exceptional performance of normal duty will not alone justify an award of this decoration. c. For service not related to actual war, the term "duty of great responsibility" applies to a narrower range of positions than in time of war and requires evidence of conspicuously significant achievement. However, justification of the award may accrue by virtue of exceptionally meritorious service in a succession of high positions of great importance. d. Awards may be made to persons other than members of the Armed Forces of the United States for wartime services only, and then only under exceptional circumstances with the express approval of the President in each case.' The two are considered equivalent on the order of precedence, but the DSM is NOT an award for valor in combat. 'The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the U.S. Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction." Horrorshowj's confusion is based upon the fact that each branch of the service has it's own version of the same award for the DSC and DSM. For example: The Army Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross are the same commendation, simply given in different branches of the service (Much like an O-3 in the Army is called a 'Captain', but that title isn't used until 'O-6' in the Navy - but an 'O-6" in the Army is called a 'Colonel', not all branches call the same thing by the same name). The Silver Star is third in the order of precedence. If this needs to be debated further (it shouldn't, simply walk up to the next person you see in uniform and ask them) then please move the argument over to Silver Star Rapier1 (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit convoluted, but the premise is sound: the Silver Star is the 3rd highest award for valor given by the military. You can consider the MOH as the first, and each of the branchs' service crossed as the 2nd (they are all equal). The distinguished service medals do rate higher in precedence, but are not awarded for valor (e.g. combat). bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In the assumption that the military awards will not be determined notable enough for inclusion. Even if the awards do fit under the BIO guideline, undue weight is given to other aspects of his life which do not merit encyclopedic coverage when the focus would be his military service.Cptnono (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like he was a fine person, but the article reads like a memorial, which Wikipedia is not. The Silver Star is not the nation's highest medal, and 100,000 to 150,000 have been awarded since 1932, per the Silver Star article. The Pentagon does not even keep a list, apparently. The article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Not every biography which has referenced facts belongs in Wikipedia; it is more than a compendium of every referenced fact or biography. Edison (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think I understand where much of the confusion has been coming from, and I've redesigned the page to help remedy this. 'A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.' or have recieved a 'notable award or honor'. This is the case here when he was awarded "Outstanding Young Men of America" in 1982, which is 'reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject'. Some of the confusion is due to the fact that he was awarded this status for doing other things that could arguably be considered 'notable', such as his military commendations, police commendations, and community service. Any one of these things would arguably be grounds for not including the article on the basis of notability - thus necessitating the expanded listing explaining them. The other information is included to round out the picture of his life and can be included since he is no longer a living person. I have modified the article to express this more clearly and now Recommend withdrawing Nomination based on the fact that as Cazort said above, 'Notability isn't about being famous, it's about being documented. Much of the content of this article is verifiable in reliable sources'. When taken as a whole there is more than enough information in this article to establish notability. Rapier1 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This will come as no shock, but I disagree that this honour is notable, per Wikipedia's definition. It's a bit like the Silver Star, in that there are simply too many recipients to say that it alone establishes notability. For example, in 1986, 37,000 men were on the list, and in 1980, there were 18,000. (I didn't find numbers for '82, but I'm still looking.) Also, I found nothing in an all-dates search for "Outstanding Young Men of America" Novack, which isn't to say that I doubt that he was listed by OYMA, just that it wasn't covered, which attests to its lack of notability. I also found this from the 1986 article above: "Each of the 37 000 few, then, got a certificate in the mail, and a paperweight, too. They also got an order form so they could buy the book. So did their proud parents. Some thought it had something to do with the U.S. Jaycees. It once did, when the Jaycees' Ten Outstanding Young Americans were featured in the front of the book. But with 36,990 others getting in on the act, well, "that's one of the reasons why we left the relationship," said Jaycees' public relations manager Bob Shelton." Shelton is all but saying that OYMA is not a notable honour. My vote is still to delete the article; I certainly see no reason to withdraw the nomination, as the OYMA reference was there when WWGB nominated it. --Dawn Bard (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a basic problem with the argument "Notability isn't about being famous, it's about being documented." Wrong. Verifiability is about being documented, and it is a component of being notable. I may have run a dozen half-marathons. It's verifiable, through third party pages, videos on the local TV station etc etc. But that doesn't make me notable. Notability doesn't necessarily mean being famous though, but there are certain requirements of being distinguishable from the crowd to make one notable and for the purpose of Wikipedia, those are documented per the Wikipedia policies. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am going to summarize the arguments for deletion (as I see them) for clarity. Despite the subject's wonderful deeds, he still does not meet the criteria for WP:BIO and this article should be deleted. I would again note that Wikipedia is not a memorial and though I commend the author for his great work at recounting his father's legacy, Wikipedia is not the place for such an account. Now, as to the arguments:

1. The subject's good deeds are not enough to confer automatic notability, no matter how great.
2. The "award" criterion is really meant to be reserved for very high-level awards that are themselves highly noteworthy, and so far, the awards listed do not seem to be high-level enough, per the above discussion, to confer automatic notability.
3. The subject does not inherit notability from his association with other notables. A letter regarding his death from a member of Congress does confer automatic notability.
4. Now, to the key for establishing notability - the only references that meet the criterion of receiving recognition in "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" are, first, an article in a local paper about the subject's tragic death. Having died in a car crash and being the subject of an article about said incident does not confer notability, as there are many car accidents that result in death and plenty of articles written in local papers about the victims. I recognize the tragedy, but again assert that this is not enough to confer notability. Second, an article in a local paper about the firebombing. Again, terrible, but being the victim of a crime does not confer notability, as there are many crimes that occur and many articles written about their victims.

I would like to reiterate once again that NONE of this is meant to be a personal attack on the author or in any way disparaging of the subject. The only intention here is to determine whether or not a biography on this subject belongs in Wikipedia based on the current interpretation of WP:BIO. Thank you. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this exactly the kind of guy I would want as a neighbor and a friend. I wish more Americans were like him - committed to his country and willing to put it all on the line. However, when reviewing our policies regarding "notability" - I'm just not seeing it. The sources all appear to be local or maybe regional, and that's not what we're about. I recommend to this article's author that he carry his father's name into history through his children and grandchildren, and through the foundation established in his name. Rklawton (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although the subject appears to have been a good man during his life, I do not believe the article satisfies WP:BIO or WP:RS and is in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I do, however, commend his son for his efforts in establishing this article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mr. Novack sounds like a stellar citizen. However, neither the award of the Silver Star nor the selection as one of the "Outstanding Young Men of America" are sufficient for notability. The U.S. government does not even keep a database of all of the Silver Star recipients. With respect to U.S. military awards - the practice on Wikipedia has been that recipients of the Medal of Honor and recipients of the Navy Cross/Army Distinguished Service Cross/Air Force Cross (the top two medals) are notable due to these awards. The article reads like a eulogy/tribute to a well-respected father. — ERcheck (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Individual seems notable enough, but the article needs a great deal of work to make it seem like a biography and not a tribute. This does not, in my opinion, degrade it enough to warrant deletion, just a lot of editing. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral As ERcheck says, the Silver Star itself does not warrant notability per wiki guidelines. If this person does meet notability guides, it'll have to come from other means. From what I see, I'd say it's borderline right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - To the author, It is obvious that the article will be deleted because it does not currently meet the notability criteria. What I suggest is that before it is deleted, you paste the article in a "sandbox" or "workshop" (I would be more then happy to create one for you if you ask me in my "talk" page). There you can take your time and do some more work on it and what I mean by working in it is providing reliable verifiable sources which you can cite as proof of the subject's notability. By this I mean sources such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, government recognition's and so on. Once you have your article ready ask an established editor to look it over before resubmitting it. That is my suggestion. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done already, but thank you very much for the suggestion. I'll be contacting some of the people here for their advice before it's re-submitted. Rapier1 (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Much of the information here is quoted in Outstanding Young Men of America MCMLXXXII Library of Congress Card Catalog No. 65-3612, page 978. While the notability of this achievement is a matter of debate, it's publication verifying the achievements is a "reliable independent source", is it not? Somewhere in this discussion the suggestion was made to clean up the referances and not have that particular referance sourced multiple times. In an effort to do that I tried to put it all under "OMYA Listing", but this also made a lot of the article look unsourced.
Also, a problem I'm running in to with the military awards is that while their existance is known, the reason they were awarded is classified. I'm informed that this is not uncommon in the special forces in a time of war (for the longest time, the United States government wouldn't even confirm that it's troops were going into Cambodia and Laos, much less who they were and what they were doing), and it makes it devilishly difficult to get information about it. Dad had the originals, they were destroyed in the fire, and he got the replacements. The medals exist, I made the shadowbox for them myself, but getting the details about them is virtually impossible. Suggestions? Rapier1 (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read this article it certainly questions whether OYMA is a "reliable independent source". Those young men published in the book are invited to buy a copy of the book; they in turn nominate other young men to be published the following year. The primary motivation of the editors seems to be selling books! There is no criteria for selection other than the nomination of past buyers and the whim of the editors. Sorry, that book just does not cut it. 220.253.188.32 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an argument to support notability, I'll cede that OMYA does not confer with it notability. What it was was a question regarding sourcing. OMYA may not confer notability, but unless your argument is that the facts in the book are false, then I don't see the argument against using the book as a source of verification of particular facts. Rapier1 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion? Yeah: Stop. Other editors have made incredible efforts to be respectful and polite but you keep on arguing to keep a page that is in violation of several guidelines. There are a dozen ways you can have your father mentioned here. There are also plenty of ways to spread the word on your foundation. There are even more ways to remember your father that do not include trying to win an argument on Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, it's been made fairly clear that this article will be deleted. While I and a few others may have tried to make a case for it's inclusion, it's obvious that it would still require extensive work to make it sound more encyclopedic, and the consensus here is for deletion. As my response to Tony the Marine shows, I'm already anticipating this. My question specifically inquired about finding information regarding military awards (yes, as the Personal Representative of the estate I've simply asked DoD, and they aren't talking). I'm asking for help, not snarky 'advice'. If that is all you have to offer, please keep it to yourself. Rapier1 (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was serious and wasn't supposed to be snarky. It did come across a little harsh, though. I was a little frustrated after reading some of your previous attempts to debate the guidelines. I would recommend ditching the idea of having military service be the base of the article since it looks like verifiability is hard to come by. Have you considered creating an article about the foundation instead? If it is a national scale: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations Cptnono (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (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.