Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rees (airman)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. Boldly closing speedily per WP:SNOW, consensus for deletion is extremely unlikely to develop. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rees (airman)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tom Rees (airman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Being the first airman killed by Manfred von Richthofen doesn't make you notable. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 02:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a brief perusal, most of the references are about the Red Baron. The ones about Rees are either not about him specifically or insubstantial. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POINT. This article has been worked on by numerous editors to the point that it has appeared on the main page. It is therefore generally acceptable as an adornment to the encyclopedia per our policy WP:IAR. The nomination is based on WP:SOLDIER but that is an essay and so has no official standing and the current RfC demonstrates that there's no consensus for it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is clearly based on GNG also, not just SOLDIER. I do not understand your POINT argument, what are you trying to say? Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
POINT is the converse of IAR – unproductive activity to prove or score a point. For example, Mztourist recently went through my contributions and twice nominated the Dog & Bull for deletion. They failed and the article recently adorned the main page too. It was read there by thousands of people who had no complaints. See also vexatious litigation.
As for GNG, the subject clearly passes it as it would not have gotten through AfC and DYK otherwise.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Rees (British soldier) Discussion at DYK 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson I am asking you what you are saying is POINT about this AFD? POINTy is you and your friends putting up AFD pages for DYK and then holding that up as a sign that the page shouldn't be deleted despite a lack of SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? No virtue in that argument.
The two of you have a repeated failure at WP:AFD, flouting WP:Before, and the articles are developed with sources you should have foundwith due diligence. These go on to successful DYK nominations and are on the front page. This state of facts only proves how misguided these AFDs are.
It's not about you. It is about the subject, the sources (including those that are out there, even if not cited) and the article as it develops.
The prosecution rests. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What repeated failure are you referring to? Poorly sourced pages are put up for AFD, debated and a consensus reached or not. Andrew Davidson says that this is a POINTy AFD and I am asking him what is POINTy about it and am yet to receive a credible answer. As far as your "prosecution" goes you haven't proven anything other than that you will Keep any page no matter how weak and irrelevant the sourcing is. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An essay is not even close to policy. It goes policy->guideline->consensus-by-common-usage->essay. Essay is the last/weakest type of consensus. The reason is anyone (or a few people) can create an essay that says whatever. Also, I would like to see that discussion you refer to, most of the time they are not so clearly resolved and/or tend to be dominated by a handful of people. -- GreenC 17:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nom cited SOLDIER and GNG. If they didn't cite SOLDIER someone would doubtless raise it and as the nom notes below it still represents MilHist consensus at least until the discussion: [1] closes. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this is rich. Noms are citing SOLDIER in dozens or hundreds of AfDs while at the same time there is a discussion to deprecate SOLDIER, with most !oting to kill it. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So? Both the nom and I acknowledge the discussion regarding SOLDIER, which is why the nom also mentioned GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andrew Davidson and 7&6=thirteen are clearly engaged in a witch hunt to try and point out faults with my arguments on almost every single AFD I've filed in the past month or so. I remind them; WP:SOLDIER is a consensus that was established by the military history wikiproject. It may not be official policy, but it's the closest you can get to it. If it is deleted, I would understand their arguments, but it hasn't been deleted. :::::Lettlerhello • contribs 14:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lettler This is not a "witch hunt." If you insist, then stop being a witch and doing silly AFDs.
You apparently are a slow learner, at least as to what AFD is about. It should not be about establishing your body count. If it hurts when you do this, don't do it anymore.
N.b., I was at this article FIRST. I built it up, and got a DYK. Many years ago. You did not have this account at the time; so as far as I know, you were not even a blip on my radar then.
Stop following me. WP:Stalking. WP:Pot. You caused the problem, and now want to blame me. Chutzpah.
You came to me, not the other way around. So stop with the sanctimonious bullshit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctimonious? That's rich coming from you who wrote this: [2] Mztourist (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You folks nominated scores of articles for deletion all at once. You want to wear that cloak? Go for it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes GNG as was determined by an earlier AfD and DYK. This AfD appears to be part of a larger ongoing war, another smoking battlefield. There is no place to merge without creating an over-WEIGHT problem in the target article. Keep per WP:PRESERVE (policy). -- GreenC 16:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "earlier AFD"? Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a fine, well constructed, well documented, easy to read and look at article. It should stay. Carptrash (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Common sense and good editorial judgment intrudes into this discussion. Thank you User:Carptrash. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:GNG above, and also per WP:ANYBIO, Rees "received [...] well-known and significant award[s]" that received news coverage, including BBC News, when they were sold at auction. From BBC News: "Such a group of medals, although hard-earned, would normally be regarded as somewhat commonplace, but the facts behind these humble medals make them a very special item," says Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh." Beccaynr (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "well-known and significant award[s]"? he received a set of very ordinary medals that only have any significance because of his WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are "significant" because the BBC says they are ("very special item"). That you disagree with the BBC is a matter of your personal opinion, but objectively we report what sources say, in this case an assertion of notability. -- GreenC 05:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you mean "Welsh antiques dealer Robert Pugh" says they are a "very special item" as reported by the BBC? See the difference? As I said earlier, the awards themselves are not significant, their only significance is the WP:1E association with von Richthofen. Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I meant "reported by BBC News," which is also in-depth reporting about Rees in December 1999, in addition to helping make his medals "well known," per WP:ANYBIO. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr you and GreenC are completely perverting #1 of ANYBIO here. #1 states "a well-known and significant award or honor", i.e. a VC, MoH etc., Rees's awards are stated in the BBC report to be "somewhat commonplace" so they absolutely fail #1. The fact that the medals have acquired some value/collectability because of their association with von Richthofen does not somehow elevate them to satisfying #1. Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First off, you may disagree but don't call my position "perverted", are you perverted? Second, I never cited ANYBIO, I said GNG and this is "significant" coverage. Significant because it demonstrates notability asserted by the source in three words ("very special item"). -- GreenC 15:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is temporally relative; this airman was always notable for his distinguished career, apart being the Red Baron's first victim and the historical significance of his medals; he is still notable now. Many "notables" of today's Wikipedia will not be remembered in ten years' time, let alone 100+. Tony Holkham (Talk) 17:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right, Rees had no notability at the time of his death and only later became known for the retrospective WP:1E of being von Richthofen's first kill.Mztourist (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point. Does not fail WP:SOLDIER

It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable (conversely, a person who meets these criteria is not necessarily notable, if no significant coverage can be found); ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources.

nor does it fail WP:GNG, so the two reasons for deletion fail.Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per available references. Meets WP:GNG. Timberlack (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rees is way more notable that many of the minor sports and entertainment personalities cluttering up Wikipedia who will be forgotten in a couple of decades.Bermicourt (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Rees_(airman)&oldid=1007537161"