Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ackerman (USMC)

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 just having service number one, even if that fact is mentioned in any number of books, is not sufficient to establish notability. Sandstein 07:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Ackerman (USMC)[edit]

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

Does this fact make the individual notable? Cynof Gavuf 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having the lowest service number does not make someone notable. He did not do anything to get this number other than first alphabetically when the numbers were created. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely not. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: James Ackerman is mentioned in every military history textbook that I have read about military service numbers as having the first Marine Corps officer number in history. That makes him extremely notable. Very surprised that this is even being suggested for deletion along with Alexander Schott. See also Arthur Crean for another military service number first. -OberRanks (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it with sources. "Every military history textbook" doesn't seem to be showing up on Google Books or Scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 October 2009
- I added two sources from NPRC and one from the Marine Corps historical institute, where there is at least a volume of history material including copies of his service record. I could probably very easily find several more military textbooks where his name is mentioned but wrote this as a stub since it was sitting as a red link on the article Service number (United States Marine Corps). I never expected it to be nominated for deletion. -OberRanks (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never expected someone to have an article just for having the first number. There are surely copies of service records of thousands of marines; being the one with #1 because his name starts with A doesn't make him any more notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding the first USMC service number in history, regardless of why they assigned it, is itself notable (at least I think so). Also, this is only a stub. I would imagine Ackerman probably has a very thick service record with all kinds of accomplishments from World War I. I think he might also be a Silver Star recepient, which would also be another postive hit for keeping the article. I could verfy that, but would need a few days. -OberRanks (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All required information is already contained in Service number (United States Marine Corps). Unlikely search term, and no information from this article needs to be retained.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just got an e-mail that he is mentioned in "USMC: A Complete History" by Jon Hoffmann which covers his World War I service and speaks of his significance as the holder of service #1. -OberRanks (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even on the assumption that getting the lowest service number is somehow notable, this is, at best, WP:BIO1E. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that the mentions in the "military history textbooks", if they exist, are anything more than trivial. Service record copies obviously cannot establish notability, otherwise every single serviceman would be notable. Tim Song (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I think he was awarded the Silver Star. I will need a few days to contact the Marine Corps and get a list of his decorations. That is why it was such a shame that we rushed into a deletion when this was only still a stub and I had not yet had time to research him completely. -OberRanks (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Between 100,000 and 150,000 Silver Stars have been awarded. Even earning that does not guarantee notabliity. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we could find many "reasons" to delete the article, but just on the surface he is mentioned in a major history textbook, in two federal government memos, and his record is deemed high profle by NPRC. You're made your position clear, though, so thank you. I will continue to research him and see what else I can find. What I've said so far is just based on the barest of research into him. -OberRanks (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is still only a stub, perhaps the editor should be allowed time to expand and assert further notability. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: He's had some mention in several significant historical accounts, and all of the refs are good reliable sources. While I'm not expecting WAX to make a good deletion argument, my opinion is that he's at least far more notable than, say, Paris Hilton. At the very least, give it some more time to develop with the additional information OberRanks mentions. bahamut0013^words _deeds 10:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or give it a chance to develop further I would agree with the comment of G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ and give author time to research the man and his career. Whats the hurry? I have to spend 15 minutes a day just fixing stuff that is vandalized that is on my watchlist; if OberRanks wants to spend some time researching the man, I say give him the time.Cuprum17 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the depth of published sources about the man needed to meet WP:BIO. This is at best a sentence in the relevant article about USMC service numbers. Responses to queries to archives are not suitable for establishing notability. I'd suggest that userfying this article would be the best option here so that User:OberRanks can continue to work on this article, which does not meet the relevant criteria for inclusion at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears in a published military series about the Marine Corps - reference was added two days ago.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nick-D unless it is proven that this officer did something notable, as opposed to being mentioned in the USMC service numbers article. Buckshot06(prof) 07:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gotten four e-mails at this point from the USMC Historical Society that this veteran was a Silver Star recepient and participated in several WWI battles in Europe where he was cited for heroism. It will take me about 2-3 weeks to get this material in the mail. On top of this, we are getting away from the fact that holding service #1, in a service number system where over three million such numbers were issued, sets this man apart in some way at least. Being a stub is not a good reason to delete it since, after the SS and WWI material comes in the mail, it will amost certianly be rewritten and recreated. -OberRanks (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being the lowest service number does not set anyone apart unless it is done for a notable reason such as the article on Arthur Crean appears to say about John Pershing. There are ~100,000 Silver Star recipients, not a notable achievement. Millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of all nations participated in WWI battles in Europe and good percentage were cited for heroism, but that does not make them all notable. If this is deleted, I suggest userification so OberRanks can continue to work on it as new information is available. It can then be re-evaluated with new information. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. As others have stated above, having a service number does not make someone notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above - possible Silver Star recepient cited for heroism. Will need 2-3 weeks to confirm, but four e-mails from the USMC Historical Society say that he is. -OberRanks (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did see that. Although worthy of our respect and admiration, a Silver Star in itself is also not quite notable enough for someone to warrant inclusion by Wikipedia's standards. It is typically accepted, in regards to decorations, that only the recipients of a nation's highest honour (eg Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor) are automatically notable enough for inclusion. No offence, but a service number and Silver Star does not quite cut it per WP:BIO or WP:MILMOS#NOTE. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would actually argue that it would. We have several articles about Silver Star recepients (it is the 3rd highest award in the US military for bravery) and add to that the veteran has the historical significance of holding service #1. In addition, it is extremely likely he was involved in some of the more major battles of World War I and possibly on the planning staffs - on the surface, that is at least four items to make him notable. I do not want to break WP:CRYSTAL, but it seems very counterporductive to delete this article KNOWING that it will be rewritten in about a month with all of this material. Schott is an entirely different story, sad to see him go but not much to hold him up. Ackerman, however, has more than enough to warrant an article at this stage - I just need to add it all in and coordinate the reference material. -OberRanks (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also add that we appear to have an entire category devoted to recepients of the Silver Star: Category:Recipients of the Silver Star -OberRanks (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say articles on Silver Star recipients do not exist, but that it is very doubtful that a person whose sole "claim to fame" is that they are a recipient of that decoration would be deemed notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's standards; several AFDs on such people have resulted in a delete in the past. If you were to look at the people listed in that category, you would find that the vast majority of them would be notable for other feats, such as becoming an actor, or a general, etc. As I stated above, by guidelines only recipients of the highest award are deemed automatically notable, not second or third level. Also, as I have stated above, I still do not believe this individual is notable enough for inclusion and whether or not it will be rewritten in a month is irrelevant. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we will find out because I have every intention of rewriting the article once the material from the USMC gets here. This has sadly become a situation of deleting the article becuase its a stub without giving more time for the addition of further material. It also is rapidly looking like there is a general attitude of "I dont't care what you say, he will never be notable as far as I'm concerned." I am not saying that in a negative way, it is just a pity that we will probably be back here again once the article gets re-written (I would also protest any speedy delete of the re-written article). -OberRanks (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't read any of the delete comments as you seem to be reading them. I don't think anyone is saying delete it because it is a stub. I also don't believe anyone is saying that if the article is reworked and he is shown to be notable that they would still recommend deletion. I know I have read everything you and everyone else has put on this page and am continually re-evaluating my position. The problem is that none of the new information says that he is notable. Silver Star recipients are not automatically notable, participating in battles and being cited for heroism is not notable in itself, being on the planning staff for battles is not notable, having the lowest service number because of the alphabet is not notable. Even adding all this together is not enough for his own article. A part in a larger article is appropriate, but it is already there. I think a little good faith that people are evaluating the information available and then making a decision is appropriate. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certianly not blaming anyone, here. Everyone on Wikipedia is welcome to thier opinion and the voice of consensus is what rules this site and we should all follow it. If the consensus wishes a deletion, then thats fine. I do plan to re-write the article - I think a lot of the nay-sayers here will actually be very surprised what might come out about this veteran especially if he was indeed on planning staffs and tactical committees during the First World War. There is not much else I can say here. I am in the dark until the package gets here from the USMC and I can read about what he actually did and wheter or not he was a Silver Star holder. -OberRanks (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to have nearly no information on the person (date of birth or anything individual) other than one line on the Silver Star and was involved in major WWI battles (with a few million others). All the other information is about the service number which could be in the related article. Daft question didnt the USMC use numbers for the first hundred odd years the Service number (United States Marine Corps) doesnt explain what happened before (just raises a further question about the notability of being first in the current system if they had something before). MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Service numbers did not exist prior to about 1918. The main article Service number (United States armed forces) for more info. One of the main reason this veteran is notable is becuasr the hold the very first service number in the United States armed forces is somewhat a point of honor, regardless of why or how you were selected. -OberRanks (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Nothing to do with this debate but it seems strange that the US forces did not use some numbering system to record personnel before 1918.~~ Sorry, not relevant MilborneOne (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have a particular interest in who had the first service number (Who had the first Social Security Number? Betcha it wasn't "1". Do we have an article on them?), but the fact is that scholars and historians do have an interest in this individual. The result is that we have multiple reliable sources documenting elements of this person's service. If, as OberRanks indicates, there is additional information forthcoming, I see no need to delete this article. Per WP:AGF, I'd like to give some additional time to expand the article and find additional sources. I presume Major Ackerman is deceased, so there is no pressing BLP concern that comes into play. The bottom line, in my mind, is that the article is a stub, and I see no compelling reason to delete it without permitting time to expand it. If that means userfication, then so be it - but I view that as a secondary option. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Basic service information was faxed today from Quantico about his officer service and it raises some very interesting questions. His dates of service were 1915 - 1947, retired rank of Major mostly work in the Supply Depot/Quartermaster field. Enlisted/World War I service was 1915 - 1919 but this material is not available from the USMC - his enlisted record is at NPRC and would take about 3 months to get. It looks like he was NOT awarded the Silver Star but he was cited for bravery both in WWI and some amphib operations in the 1930s to Central America. His service #1 designation was becuase he was alphabetically first on the list when they turned on service numbers in 1920. I could expand this article, since I still feel being #1 in the system is very noteworthy insofar as military history is concerned, but apparently other people don't feel its noteworthy. I've asked for even more input on the USMC portal since I dont want to spend hours of work adding in all this new data only to have it be deleted. -OberRanks (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all respect, what you're doing here is original research. While this highly valuable, it can't be published on Wikipedia - we're limited to sources which have already been published under the policy Wikipedia:No original research. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Service summaries of military careers published by the Marine Corps Historical Society are not original research. In both this article and the other, the address of where to get them is clearly displayed. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete. Insufficient references to meet notability, as none of them appear to be indepth enough to warrant notability with so few references. Furthermore, unless the individual was awarded any notable awards (thus he'd be covered under WP:ANYBIO), he falls under WP:BIO1E, therefore pertinent information should be merged into the article Service number (United States Marine Corps), and the rest should be deleted and replaced with a redirect. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:00, 30 October 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.