Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hal B. Jennings

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hal B. Jennings

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

Non notable figure. No case made for inclusion. Droliver (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - did you even read the article? If you had you would have seen the following: "Surgeon General, 10 October 1969-30 September 1973". I'd say the Surgeon General of the United States Army is very notable. Also, as a three-star general, he meets WP:SOLDIER to boot. The article desperatly needs work - it appears to have been cut-and-pasted from a PD source - but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and trout. I was going to skip this one but I thought the challenge of Dr. Griffin (below) was so poorly considered that I dropped in since it was from the same nominator. This guy was the SURGEON GENERAL from 1969 to 1973. I'll be checking any and all challenges by this nominator, it goes without saying. A challenge which was utterly incompetent, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Surgeon General of the Army, to be precise - but still, trout are called for here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ya got me there, but Surgeon General of the United States Army is still an instakeep, I think we all can agree. Carrite (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep; clearly passes WP:SOLDIER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is clearly notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - You do realize that Surgeon General of the Army is NOT the Surgeon General everyone knows about (eg. C. Edward Koop). It's a relatively obscure and anonymous position in the culture. I do not see which if the WP:SOLDIER criteria it meets. Just saying.Droliver (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, we absolutely realise that. The Surgeon General of the Army is the highest ranked medical officer in the army - it's equivilant to commanding an Army (unit) in the Army (military force). And WP:SOLDIER #3 (at least) is in play - Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents. General officer = stars on the shoulders, and Jennings had three of a (usually) possible four stars. There is zero question of notability here - the notability is so well established, it's gone plaid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the major newspaper articles mention him are hidden behind paywalls. [1] But this is a notable position, and his activities would be covered. Dream Focus 15:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Surgeon General of the Army is an important position, and this article is well documented and detailed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good God, the man was a lieutenant-general and held a senior appointment in the US Army. Of course he's notable. Ludicrous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 6 January 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.