Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Walter Waitt


 * 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 redirect to No. 550 Squadron RAF. This was a complex AfD with many sincere and well argued comments. There is no doubt that this is a nicely written page, that certainly contains much material of interest, and I have considered WP:NOTPAPER. However, we work within the notability guidelines, specifically WP:SOLDIER and more generally WP:GNG. In this regard, I find the 'delete' arguments clearly more policy based, and hence stronger, than the 'keep' arguments.

Moving on to the action to be taken, redirects are cheap and I see no reason not to create a redirect to sourced content on this person that will be useful to the reader. Normally, i would 'delete and redirect'. However, the editors of the target may wish to merge more content and there is no need to make that difficult. Clearly, though, a recreation should not happen without further discussion so I am going to protect the redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Walter Waitt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:SOLDIER. Unpublished war records are not a RS either. Gbawden (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85  (☎)(Edits) 21:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I can see why this has been flagged up, but I'd argue for keep. Waitt was adjutant for a notable squadron, which dropped the first bombs on DDay and whose insignia is still flown on the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. It was highly unusual for a member of the Royal Flying Corps to be awarded the Military Medal; he was in the forefront of wireless technology in WW1. So, on balance, keep. ---Asteuartw (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet any criteria for inclusion. Won the Military Medal, a third-level decoration (actually pretty common in the RFC before the introduction of the Distinguished Flying Medal in 1918). Later a junior officer who served as an adjutant; the fact it was a notable squadron is irrelevant - he was just its administrative officer. A highly honourable war record, certainly, but not an unusual one. Many thousands of personnel could claim a similar record. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 *  Still Keep  Highly honourable indeed, and it is surely thanks to men like Waitt that we sleep safely in our beds and are able pass judgment on what is notable or not. But then, I'm an inclusionist, and I see little harm done by a modest expansion of the encyclopedia with an extra war hero or two. ---Asteuartw (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is, many people with third-level decorations have already been deleted at AfD. Why should this gentleman be kept if they were deleted? Remember, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in world history who have won third-level decorations. For instance, more than 132,000 Military Medals, more than 48,000 Military Crosses and up to 150,000 American Silver Stars have been awarded. That's why we generally have a cut-off of one first-level or two second-level decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: on inclusionist grounds (and as a nicely edited article on a very early member of the RFC); worth bearing in mind that the Military Medal, although awarded to "other ranks", denoted a level of gallantry similar to that required for a Military Cross. 45ossington (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Both are third-level decorations. And as I said, more than 180,000 have been awarded, not to mention all the tens of thousands of DSCs, DSMs, DFCs, DFMs, AFCs, AFMs, QGMs, and CBEs, OBEs, MBEs and BEMs for Gallantry! And that's before you add the many thousands more second-level decorations: DSOs, CGCs, CGMs, DCMs and GMs. And that's just Britain and the British Empire and Commonwealth. Add all the countries round the world (many of which award medals far more freely than Britain) and that's millions of people eligible for articles on this basis. There are limits, surely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:SOLDIER is not a policy and is contrary to the core policy of WP:NPOV in that it is biased in favour of senior ranks. Our actual policies include WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE and these indicate that we should not delete this. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. For the simple reason that generals etc are generally much more notable! Claiming NPOV as a justification is ridiculous. That could be seen as a justification for an article on any soldier anyone happened to want to write about. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER says quite plainly at the head of its page that "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy ...". We prefer policy-based argument here and mine is based upon the solid policies of WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV.  That's 4-0.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, as I've said, NPOV is completely irrelevant to your argument. And essay or not, WP:SOLDIER is generally held to be a valid citation at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am not persuaded that your opinionated essay trumps all those policies. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My essay? No, I assure you I didn't write it. And it is in no way opinionated. It has been written and accepted by editors who know a lot about military history. And most people, even non-experts, would appreciate that generals are clearly more notable than privates. But here's the key guideline: WP:ANYBIO. How does he meet that one? And no, the Military Medal, with more than 132,000 awards, does not meet it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The subject passes WP:ANYBIO because the military medal is a "a well-known and significant award". The number is unimportant per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE.  In any case, we're just discussing a single article here and it already exists.  This discussion exists too, even though it is of little interest to our readership.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is also a policy, and the article outright tells us that its content is not. Editors have been discussing the Military Medal whilst missing the elephant in the room that the article explicitly tells us that this is not a claim that can be verified because information on this subject has not been published.  Uncle G (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that Waitt was awarded the Military Medal. This was recorded in the London Gazette on 11 October 1916. It is also recorded at p408 of McInnes & Webb's "Contemptible Little Flying Corps". The claim is well sourced. ---Asteuartw (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete although he clearly did his bit during both world wars there is nothing in his article that makes him standout from thousands of other airman to be worthy of an article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete fails our notability guidelines for soldiers. SportingFlyer  T · C  08:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable RAF pilot who served in two world wars. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD because the article is need of attention and references need clean up. The article needs an editor not a deletion. Lubbad85  (☎)(Edits) 21:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the sources on this soldier are significant coverage. Even the most in-depth coverage here is nothing more than a database listing his basic information.  Whether or not meeting WP:NSOLDIER is a valid inclusion criteria is irrelevant when the subject does not pass the WP:GNG, which most certainly is.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not common for a person to have fought in both wars. Which is in itself notable: See Bill Stone, or Bernard Green. Unfortunately notability is not Googleable for a chap like Waitt who did all of his notable things in 1917 and in 1945, (and was dead by 1974). A policy that applies to Waitt WP:NEXIST The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Waitt was surely written about in newsprint and hard copy: ambitious editors are needed. The British mobilized 8,904,467 soldiers in WWI and they had 3,190,235 casualties. How many survived to fight again 21 years later? It is food for thought. Lubbad85  (☎)(Edits) 19:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If those sources are found, I will be happy to review them and, if appropriate, revise my recommendation. Until then, though, this article does not meet the WP:GNG regardless of how commendable his service may have been.  The argument that the person might be notable and that there might be sources that have not been found yet is not a strong enough argument to indefinitely keep a poorly sourced article.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Almost every single senior officer and warrant officer of the British Armed Forces at the outbreak of WWII had also fought in WWI, as had many more junior officers and NCOs. There were only 21 years between the wars, remember. That means someone who served in WWI could be under 40 at the beginning of WWII. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Its hard to find searchable newspapers from that long ago.  His accomplishments seem to make him notable enough for 5k bytes on an online Encyclopedia.  I know most of the Wikipedia is dedicated to people famous for being attractive and popular so the media usually chooses that as their standard reason to write about them, instead of actual merit, but there is no limit in space so no reason we can't have articles on people like this also.   D r e a m Focus  13:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is pretty much a WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, though. As someone mentioned already above, most of the claims of his actions during the wars are not even verified at this point.  Wikipedia has always had pretty clear guidelines on how subjects can meet notability and verifiability, and appealing to emotion rather than following them is not good practice, regardless of what the subject is. Rorshacma (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a reference at the bottom of this AFD that verifies the claims. And the guidelines pages all have a disclaimer at the top reading: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."  WP:IAR on the other hand is a policy and it simply and clearly states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."    D r e a m Focus  15:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * His awarding of the medal was verified. I was referring to the bulk of the article, that is talking about his actual actions during the wars, such as why he was awarded the medal.  As in, everything that is currently being attributed to unpublished war records, which is the majority of the information being presented.  I feel that the argument being presented in this AFD for why the article should kept is basically arguing that notability can be established by how commendable we think a subject is, rather than how many reliable sources actually establish notability and verifiability, and I feel that is a dangerous precedent to set.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete None of the sources have any substance to them, and the widely awarded medal does not establish notability. Unpublished war records do not meet verifiability requirements and appear to cover routine activities that do not set him apart per WP:SOLDIER. Reywas92Talk 19:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, A brave man fought in world war but he was one of the thousands. the article does not pass notability. Alex-h (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's true that the number of medal-winning RAF pilots is enormous, but the number of medal-winning RAF pilots verified for having served in both WWI and WWII is a much shorter list.  - WPGA2345 - </b> <big style="color: black; background:#ffffff">☛  16:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that he won the MM before he was a pilot. There is nothing in the article about his combat service as a pilot (he was commissioned in WWI "for ground duties"), so he may have qualified after WWI, as he does appear to be wearing a pilot's brevet in the photo. He served as an adjutant (i.e. administrative officer) in WWII; squadron adjutants did not generally fly operationally, although they were more often than not qualified pilots, usually older officers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. It was not uncommon for men of his age and career to serve in both wars, nor was winning the Military Medal uncommon. Being a squadron adjutant isn't notable. WP:V is a core policy; that much of the article rests on unpublished sources is a good indicator that we shouldn't be writing about him yet. Invoking WP:IAR to keep an article which violates WP:V makes no sense. Mackensen (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't pass presumed notability threashold of SOLDIER, and fails GNG (which needs to be evaluated irrespective of SOLDIER). I was unable to find references of note not present in the article. In terms of references in the article (numbering per this version) - ref1, ref2, ref4, and ref5 are WP:PRIMARY (gazette, war records, national archives) sources (and some of them brief mentions) and do not establish notability. ref6 is a list mention on http://www.550squadronassociation.org.uk - which would not be a source that would establish notability in any event. We're left with ref3-  - which is a short paragraph and fails in-depth. In short - at present we don't have in-depth coverage in a single secondary reliable source - let alone multiple. Icewhiz (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - this appears to be a WP:NOTINHERITED situation; he was involved in research, occupation, sorties, etc., but didn't command anything. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Command is surely not a prerequisite for notability? ---Asteuartw (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.