Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur William Hammond


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Arthur William Hammond

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason

This stub lacks any reliable sources to confirm the five aerial victories necessary to be a flying ace despite four years of searching. It cannot be developed beyond the stub stage not just because of the unreliability of the source, but because of the paucity of information available about Hammond.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 21:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Undecided, possibly redirect to the minimal List of World War I flying aces from the British Empire. Here's an article confirming he is an ace and a bit more biographical info. (also printed in a newspaper) Here are the London Gazette entries for two and three of the victories. Is being an ace enough for an article? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing lvote to keep due to his participation in Alan Arnett McLeod's VC exploit. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Necrothesp (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not sure whether I support it or not, but we do generally have articles on all aces and it does appear he was. For consistency, we therefore either need to delete all of them or none of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE:We do NOT have articles on all World War I aces&mdash;only the notable ones. However, non-notable aces are still included in lists.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think you'll find we have many articles on aces who are notable simply for being aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Sorry, but I happen to know you are absolutely wrong because I created the great majority of World War I ace bios over the past five years while working on the others that have been created. I have honored the WP requirement that an ace needs to have been honored with an award to be notable.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense, considering WP:SOLDIER requires one first or two second-level decorations for notability. So you are arbitrarily deciding that one third-level decoration is enough for notability along with being an ace? Why? If you don't consider someone is notable for being an ace, why do you consider they're notable for having a DFC? That sounds like a rule of thumb you've made up yourself. That's why I said that many articles appear to be about aces notable only for being aces - I didn't realise you considered a single third-level decoration conferred notability. Not trying to criticise, just trying to understand why you think some aces are notable and others aren't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I considered the first provision of WP:ANYBIO to be binding in this instance.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning we should have hundreds of thousands of articles on every winner of a third-level gallantry decoration. The fact we don't suggests that they are not considered to be a notable enough honour under the terms of WP:ANYBIO (and indeed, this has been established on many an AfD). --


 * Indeed, if you apply that provision to non-aces with minor awards, that will be the case. However, using that provision in conjunction with proof of acedom actually limits the number of articles in WP, instead of expanding them. And yes, I made a (conservative) editorial decision regarding notability. It's called BE BOLD.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being a flying ace is prima facie establishment of notability in and of itself; there is no such thing as a "non-notable ace". - The Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I tend to agree with TheBushranger that WP considers aces as prima facie notable simply because they were aces. In this case, however, if the only sources are TheAerodrome website and a service newspaper, then I don't think 'acehood' can be said to have been reliably established, and the subject therefore is not notable. Of course observer aces are a somewhat more problematic area than pilot aces. I know George has pored through a great many reliable sources in his work on ace articles, and I assume those include discussions of observer aces; if he can't find more reliable references, I'd be pretty surprised if they exist. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. RCAF historian Major March isn't good enough for you re acedom? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the chap. Has he published books on air aces?  If so, perhaps Hammond's in there...  As it is, I'm surprised he's not in a work like Above the War Fronts, which I understand deals specifically with British Empire observer aces (I assumed George had checked this one, I don't have a copy). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Unlisted in Above the War Fronts and other aviation encyclopedias of the era.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheBushranger. Aces are inherently notable.  GregJackP   Boomer!   14:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep his MC and Bar citations show five aerial victories, aces are notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep he fairly easily meets WP:GNG and there are at least two good sources to back it up, so keep.Squareanimal (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2013 (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.