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 Notability is usually demonstrated by the presence of multiple independent sources and/or inherent notability from their role or position. I'm not seeing any [[1]] of inherent notability for this individual and COS of a regional command does not seem particularly notable. We therefore go back to multiple independent sources. Since these are not present policy mandates deletion. The article can be undeleted at any time on presentation of the requisite sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Douglas Tom[edit]

Stephen Douglas Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable subject Awotter (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant copyvio, have tagged it as such for speedy delete. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article was already reviewed for speedy deletion and that was rejected, the material is from the US government and isn't subject to copyright, I just didn't think there was any notability.Awotter (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Interesting, I've nominated other military bios that were lifted as a copy paste from the same site before and they've been speedied without question as there's no license for the text. We'll see what happens with this one. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Well apparently, it depends on who's reviewing as the tag was just removed again. Oh well TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is actually an historical precedent for the complete or partial incorporation of PD material published by the US government with the extensive (and legitimate) use of DANFS. Saying that, there is no compelling, independent assertion of notability for this person. SoLando (Talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, chief of staff is an important position but not particularly notable. Does not really satisfy WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Chief of Staff of Pacific Command is a notable position. Recommend the article be rewritten so copyvio worries (and/or misconceptions) are addressed. I've added the WP:BLP banner, too. 23skidoo (talk) 15:28, 29 February 2008 (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.