Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel H. Davis (United States Army Air Service officer)
- 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. ✗plicit 13:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Samuel H. Davis (United States Army Air Service officer)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
This is the first case of over 100 year old violation of not news guidelines. However since the main coverage we have is from contemporary news reports, I still think that issue applies. I do not believe we have actual grounds to justify this article, and no actual claim to notability. Dieing in a plain crash is all we have, and that does not make someone notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete fails Davis-Monthan Air Force Base there is a lack of indepth coverage about him. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Delete - I am honestly shocked that someone that has an Air Force base named after them does not have significant coverage, but that's where we're at with this article. Nearly every single reference I could find to him was always a short sentence explaining that he was a pilot from Tuscon that died in a plane crash, and it's always in the context of why ]
- Please keep open another week so I can explore Newspapers.com, which has at least some contemporary coverage. talk) 02:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)]
- @DiamondRemley39: If you do find coverage via Newspapers.com, please provide a clipping so that we can see the content in question. I'd be more than happy to reassess if sources can be found via that route. - Aoidh (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will; I'd already found some. I can't provide clippings from other databases, if I find coverage, however. talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)]
- I will; I'd already found some. I can't provide clippings from other databases, if I find coverage, however.
- @DiamondRemley39: If you do find coverage via Newspapers.com, please provide a clipping so that we can see the content in question. I'd be more than happy to reassess if sources can be found via that route. - Aoidh (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for another week based on editor request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I've added quite a few sources to the article. Will keep adding more. Here's one I won't add as it is in Spanish: 1 talk) 23:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Other coverage I haven't and probably won't add, in English, demonstrates national and enduring interest in Davis (and Sinclair): 2 3 4 5 6
- Will search under "Howard Davis" soon to see if there is coverage of him before the war; one article says he was known by his middle name. talk) 00:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Will search under "Howard Davis" soon to see if there is coverage of him before the war; one article says he was known by his middle name.
- Keep as meets GNG. Coverage was anything but brief and local and an Air Force base bearing his name adds significantly to the notability case. If it isn't to be kept, the content of this article should go to the article on the base; no matter the outcome, some of the citations should also go to the talk) 00:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Comment - Unfortunately I have to keep my delete opinion, as the sources DiamondRemley39 found were more of the same as in my comment; a short sentence explaining that he was a pilot that died, usually to explain why the base was named what it was, and zero context beyond that. I also have to stress that having an Air Force base named after someone does not create notability for that person, as notability is not inherited. - Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep your vote, but do not misrepresent the coverage so. Certainly more than "a short sentence" describe where he was born, raised, schooled, served, and died in biographical articles with photos. There certainly is context. I don't care if it no longer exists as a standalone article--the prose and references will be preserved and the article redirected, so it does not signify--but what we can see exists must be not be downplayed if this is to be a good discussion. talk) 01:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- I did see the obituaries and the articles explaining who is was within the context of the naming of the base, but nothing outside of that. When all the coverage is about the Air Force base and explains who he is an aside, the notability just isn't there unfortunately. - Aoidh (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Come, come, now. According to that *changed* statement, you missed some sources or you misclassified them. The first source is an entire biography, for example. Not a few sentences as you first said. Not an obituary or coverage of the naming or even the crash as you have said. Again, I don't care what your vote is, but *do not misrepresent the sources you yourself asked for* and have access to yourself, according to your user page. Take your time and be precise in AfD discussions. Also, news coverage of death in papers about the country does not an obit make. talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- That first source you're referring to discusses him within the context of why the Air Force base is named what it is, which is exactly what I said it was. I would further point you to WP:BLP1E, as being mentioned in the newspapers solely for a plane crash does not create notability. Your comment seems unnecessarily focused on me and what you've assumed I did or did not do; perhaps let's focus on the content moving forward? - Aoidh (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- We are focused on the content. We are focusing on what you've said rather than on notability because your comment is misleading as to the scope of the sources. (I started my first comment with "keep your vote," after all.) We are having this tangent because such poor representation of the sources as you provided in your comments tend to mislead editors who come to the discussion and vote. Recall you wrote "a short sentence explaining that he was a pilot that died, usually to explain why the base was named what it was, and zero context beyond that". Wrong. Instead of striking, correcting, clarifying, or ignoring, you now add, "When all the coverage is about the Air Force base and explains who he is an aside..." No. Inaccurate; there was some biographical coverage at the time of his death. You could have avoided this discourse if you'd merely said "I've reviewed the dozen plus sources added and I don't see the notability". Again, keep your vote. Good editors care about accuracy on this page and in the article. You don't have to keep responding, but if you've been around AfD at all you may know that editors are likely to respond to comments like these. talk) 15:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Thankfully, you do not get to decide who "good editors" are nor what they do. You're resorting to attacking me as an editor to compensate for your lack of anything else to rebut, and thankfully anyone who reads your comment will see right through that. Despite what you're claiming, most editors don't behave like you have at AfD, especially the "good editors." I don't know what your goal is with nonsense like "good editors care..." implying that I'm not a good editor but it's inappropriate, it's not constructive, it's certainly not going to convince me of the merits of your argument, and it's frankly disappointing that you feel you have to stoop to that behavior. You're not discussing, you're attacking, and I'll not play along further. You had a chance to stop making digs at me and to focus on the content and you failed. Badly. I know you'll have the last word and you're welcome to it, but for my part I'll just say that we'll agree to disagree. I'll take this page off my watchlist now because I'm not interested in more of...whatever this is you're doing. - Aoidh (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- We are focused on the content. We are focusing on what you've said rather than on notability because your comment is misleading as to the scope of the sources. (I started my first comment with "keep your vote," after all.) We are having this tangent because such poor representation of the sources as you provided in your comments tend to mislead editors who come to the discussion and vote. Recall you wrote "a short sentence explaining that he was a pilot that died, usually to explain why the base was named what it was, and zero context beyond that". Wrong. Instead of striking, correcting, clarifying, or ignoring, you now add, "When all the coverage is about the Air Force base and explains who he is an aside..." No. Inaccurate; there was some biographical coverage at the time of his death. You could have avoided this discourse if you'd merely said "I've reviewed the dozen plus sources added and I don't see the notability". Again, keep your vote. Good editors care about accuracy on this page and in the article. You don't have to keep responding, but if you've been around AfD at all you may know that editors are likely to respond to comments like these.
- That first source you're referring to discusses him within the context of why the Air Force base is named what it is, which is exactly what I said it was. I would further point you to
- Come, come, now. According to that *changed* statement, you missed some sources or you misclassified them. The first source is an entire biography, for example. Not a few sentences as you first said. Not an obituary or coverage of the naming or even the crash as you have said. Again, I don't care what your vote is, but *do not misrepresent the sources you yourself asked for* and have access to yourself, according to your user page. Take your time and be precise in AfD discussions. Also, news coverage of death in papers about the country does not an obit make.
- I did see the obituaries and the articles explaining who is was within the context of the naming of the base, but nothing outside of that. When all the coverage is about the Air Force base and explains who he is an aside, the notability just isn't there unfortunately. - Aoidh (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep your vote, but do not misrepresent the coverage so. Certainly more than "a short sentence" describe where he was born, raised, schooled, served, and died in biographical articles with photos. There certainly is context. I don't care if it no longer exists as a standalone article--the prose and references will be preserved and the article redirected, so it does not signify--but what we can see exists must be not be downplayed if this is to be a good discussion.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the talk) 15:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the talk) 17:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the talk) 17:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)]
- Delete per nom. Coverage is local or in passing. Sufficient that he remain in Samuel Davis, with a link to the base. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'm not seeing anything with enough depth to warrant a full article. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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.