Talk:Henry Eric Dolan

Untitled
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people), notability is established by award of an honor. Secondary source is duly cited as reference for this honor.


 * Yes, but there is also WP:BLP1E.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that applies in this case. With your interpretation, the winner of a Medal of Honor or a Victoria Cross could be deemed not notable--a very dubious proposition.

Georgejdorner (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not really the letter of the rule, just the spirit. I am looking at this from a encyclopedic point of view.  The main question that comes to mind is if there is significant coverage of this person (and all the other WWI Ace articles you made) that could cover the subject significantly.  Even the source you provided only has 2 sentances on him which doesn't meet general notability guidelines.  In terms of Medal of honor recipients, there is much more material to cover them (generally).  I give you that Notability_(people) says notable awards or honors, but WP:N and Notability_(people) do not trump each other; they work in tandum.  Granted that it would be hard to find material from the 1910s, and stubs are acceptable, but I just don't see the notability personally.--TParis00ap (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let us consider these facts:

In my reading, I have found that only 2% to 3% of fighter pilots become aces. The acts necessary to becoming a fighter ace are thus unusual and notable. (I am sorry, but I do not have the reference to this readily to hand.) Trevor MacInnis (Contribs), who is the admin riding herd on this project, believes that becoming an ace is in itself is basis enough for notability.

And of course, there is the honors clause.

I can appreciate the intent of WP:BLP1E; it is the bar to the "15 minutes of fame" entries, like the kid who supposedly got carried away in that balloon in Colorado. I just do not believe it applies to men who invested months and years in flying fighter planes.

As I see it, a stub is a prod to research the subject. If you have read any of the more developed articles, you will see that there is a surprising amount of material on the early aces. You never know how much there is on a given person until researchers start digging. However, writing off the attempt before it is even made seems backwards to me.

Finally, even supposing that the stub does not develop, it still serves much the same purpose as the squibs in a printed encyclopedia. It gives such basic biographic information as is known, and in so doing, extends the list to which it is linked.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Couple of things. Just because he is an admin doesn't give him any additional authority on Wikipedia.  Users and Admins have the same authority (very little).  Admins are just trusted community members with additional tools, generally are seen as understanding policy better, and well respected.  But being an admin does not make them any more right and it generally is bad to use their names to support a subject when they are not present.  As far as the article, if I was writing it off before it was given a chance, I would have proposed it for deletion or nominated it for articles for deletion.  I didn't do that.  As far as the kid, he is surely getting more than 15 minutes (even in the non-literal sense).  I am familar with what it takes to be an ace, but I do not see the historical significance.  I am not saying this person shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, but the question is if he deserves his own article.  He is already mentioned in World_War_I_aces_credited_with_7_victories.  An expansion may be in order, but not an entire article for each person.  WWP:N states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  This person does not have significant coverage that I can see, and I did check google (granted there are many many other places to find sources).  If you can find more sigificant coverage, that is something, but if not, these should all be in a list class article.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere, somehow, a neophyte to Wikipedia must seek guidance. I sought it from the man who recruited me to the project; I have also been fortunate to have been mentored by others. As can be seen by my less inclusive definition of notability, I did not follow his advice slavishly.

I paraphrased an entry from my Talk page concerning Trevor as an indication of how I developed the informal guidelines I have been using. I haven't been creating stubs for every ace; my guidelines have been honor(s) granted and a reliable list of victories confirmed. I have weeded out several dubious aces in the process, deleting them from the list.

If I thought admins had any additional authority, why would I debate this with you? I would simply knuckle under to you, and we would not be having this discussion.

And I do appreciate having this discussion with you. And I do appreciate the fact you did not arbitrarily propose the stub for deletion.

However, I believe I have developed a viable set of guidelines for my effort. Certainly, I believe Henry Dolan is more notable than porn stars or television characters; yet they are considered notable. Given the fact that we will probably never again see a new fighter ace, I believe that the aces' heritage is worth preserving, both individually and as a group. Even a basic stub such as Henry Dolan's contains more information than the parent list.

A mere Google of an ace's name will often turn up little or nothing. However, Google's webcrawler finds fewer than half the websites in existence, and seems to be especially poor in covering this particular field of history. Additionally, there is a plenitude of archives and printed materials available to the other editors in this project.

Again, I wish to thank you for the thought and effort that you have invested in this exploration of the concept of notability. It has been evenhanded and educational. Whether it is your intent or not, you are also mentoring me.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I gather from your reply that you get the wrong impression of me and may think I am an admin, I am not. I did invite the admin you mentioned to this chat since you did bring up his name.  I agree with you that many/most porn stars and not notable.  I also 100% agree that in terms of contributions to humanity, an Ace pilot is definitely more deserving of the recognition.  I just don't think there is significant coverage to warrant a seperate article.  Thanks for the compliment by the way.--TParis00ap (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:MILPEOPLE, the article's person fails all levels of notability. That means it will in all likelyhood get the ax sooner or later. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * False. That page primarily lists some things that are sufficient to establish notability. It makes no claims of comprehensiveness. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

FALSE: If you will go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) and scroll down to Additional criteria, you will find, under the heading Any biography the following:

"The person has received a notable award or honor..."

Dolan received at least the Military Cross. (My experience in this particular niche has taught me that other decorations often come to light when further research is done.)

Additionally, aces make up a very small but notable percentage of fighter pilots. Their effect can be disproportionate to their low numbers, as when Richthofen and five of his ace pilots wiped out the equivalent of a couple of wings of British fighters during April, 1917.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)