Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Fravor


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 05:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

David Fravor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:FRINGEBLP famous for WP:ONEEVENT mostly, but interviewed as a subject-matter expert in other media. That does not consistute WP:BIO notability. jps (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Just want to let you know he has a military career which is notable even without the UFO incident, though the UFO incident does add to his notability. He was extensively featured in the documentary Carrier (TV series) which has nothing to do with UFOs. Valoem talk contrib 02:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, he's really not known for his military career. jps (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are at least four sources which speak of his military achievements as well as being feature in a documentary completely unrelated and created before his UFO was brought to light. Valoem talk contrib 02:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There are four sources that mention he was in the military. That doesn't rise to WP:MILNG. People who are featured in documentaries do not inherit notability. C'mon. You've been here long enough to know these are not good arguments. jps (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When combine with his multiple features in mainstream media regarding his UFO encounter it does elevate his notability. The result of such is a heavy documentation of his military career. Valoem talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 02:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to mention he does pass WP:MILNG, which is an essay, not a guideline.
 * Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or
 * Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group, United States air wing, Soviet/Russian aviation division, or other historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron) <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 02:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He passes neither of those criteria. Not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 03:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a commander, he doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER (I don't think? I am not up on my military ranks. But none of the articles on the rank of commander describe it as a flag officer position, which is the NSOLDIER standard.) His role in an alleged UFO sighting is not enough for a standalone article. Maybe a redirect to Pentagon UFO videos, but in any event delete. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-notable low-ranking officer who appears in a video. Fails all measures of notability. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  10:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Nika2020 (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete As written above, this is a WP:FRINGEBLP associated, sort of, with WP:ONEEVENT, and the WP:COATRACK is obvious. The military rank and service is to be respected but does not rise to encyclopedic notability. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER, WP:BLP. Notability of people mentioned in coverage of Pentagon UFO videos is not inherited. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails SOLDIER and GNG, also quite a COATRACK. Should be mentioned in the article about Pentagon UFO videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, It is rather disheartening to see an respect commander and war hero be removed from Wikipedia when he clearly passes WP:NSOLDIER. He passes:
 * Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents; or
 * Having held the rank of Commander (United States) in the United States which is a flag/insignia rank. This ranks him above Tammie Jo Shults.
 * Commanded a substantial body of troops in combat (e.g. a capital ship, an army division or higher, a Commonwealth air group
 * Having commanded 12 planes and 330 members.

He also has had a 24 career in which he flew tactical aircraft for the Navy with "over 3,500 flight hours and was a graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School, better known as TOPGUN". He is considered an expert on the F/A-18F Super Hornet and works in California for Fidelity Technologies as a simulator instructor, teaching new pilots how to fly the F/A-18. I can't help but notice some editors here are from Fringe Noticeboards and seem to ignore his prior accomplishments which makes him more notable then Tammie Jo Shults and Chesley Sullenberger when their incidents involving plane malfunction occurred. His UFO sighting only adds to his notability not diminish it. The POV here is also sufficiently neutral, having both a skeptically analysis and skepticism from Fravor himself. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the US Navy rank of commander is O-5 and is not a flag officer rank. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Under General Usage: "A flag officer sometimes is a junior officer, called a flag lieutenant or flag adjutant, attached as a personal adjutant or aide-de-camp". O-5 appears to be a rank above LCDR below Admiral. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 16:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: COATRACK, FRINGEBLP, ONEEVENT, SOLDIER. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete "Commander" is too low a rank to satisfy WP:SOLDIER, commanding a squadron is clearly below the standard that asks for commanding a formation two levels above a squadron, and the WP:ONEEVENT concerns raised above are valid. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed. There are notable people of that rank. For example, Lt. Cdr. N. S. Norway RNVR. But few, if any, who are notable for their actions at that rank. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. I am sure he is a fine person who served his country selflessly, but there are no sources independent of the UFO brouhaha. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point it appears to be a lost cause, but per WP:NSOLDIER, even if we accept that he does not pass O-5 as a flag officer he certainly passes the final criteria he certainly passes GNG. I feel particularly strongly about this because he is a war hero, who in the eyes of the fringe noticeboard has lost notability because he was an unwillingly witness in a UFO encounter, one which he was himself a skeptic. Above all, this man is far more creditable than Bob Lazar. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 00:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you've imparted the wrong motive to the good people of of FTN. If anything, the guy is notable for his UFO report because that's what the vast majority of sources about him discuss. However, I think he fails WP:FRINGEBLP. The question can then be turned to whether he is notable as a "war hero" or not. If he were notable as a war hero, we could easily marginalize the fringe aspects of this BLP and move on. But he doesn't seem to be notable as that either. So the alternative for Wikipedia is to write a biography that is focused on fringe aspects in a way that seems counter to the best practices of WP:BLP. To be clear, I am not arguing that every mention of this person be excised from the 'pedia. I am arguing that this standalone article is inappropriate considering the sourcing, notability, claims, and balance of NPOV. It's not anything more than that.
 * And, perhaps your last sentence is most telling/problematic as an argument. The goal of Wikipedia is not to determine who is credible or more likely to be correct or worthy of, say, inviting to your pod cast. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarize third-party sources. Lazar, for better or worse, has had so many sources written about him he is clearly WP:FRINGEBLP material. This particular officer just isn't as notable. I probably would much rather have a discussion with Fravor than Lazar, but that doesn't have any bearing on our decision process here. jps (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that FRINGEBLP says this person who is an unwilling, but credible witness in a UFO encounter will never be notable regardless of the number of sources which cover him and his career. This argument is fundamentally flawed and violates GNG. An example would be Chesley Sullenberger and Tammie Jo Shults who lives receive significant coverage because of one event, both people in fact receive less coverage prior to their incident than David Fravor and were of lower rank in the military. Fravor has been covered by Vice, ABC, NBC, nymag, JRE etc. each source mentions his career with Vice and JRE going into extensive detail. Therefore based on our policies his witnessing to an unexplained event would increase his notability, but strangely we are saying he is less notable here. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 15:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have now made eight posts here, within which your points have been clearly presented. Repeating those points multiple times verges upon WP:BLUDGEON. Additionally, the claim above that "some editors here are from Fringe Noticeboards and seem to ignore his prior accomplishments" and the reference to "the eyes of the fringe noticeboard" could be interpreted as aspersions and/or assumptions of bad faith. I now suggest that we all let the AfD process proceed to its conclusion without repetitive debate/discussion/argument. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone makes a response which does not represent my views, I must make a response. This is not WP:BLUDGEON as much as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've made a clear response regarding how a person without fringe attribution would have an article here is not bad faith, but facts. Your accusation of bludgeon "could be interpreted as aspersions and/or assumptions of bad faith". <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 17:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read my post again. I did not accuse you of WP:BLUDGEON, and I did not, in any way, suggest that "a clear response" is "bad faith." Please strike those false claims. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did and you certainly did. I was going to quote you, but its right about what I reply so there isn't a need to even respond. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 00:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pentagon UFO videos: He doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO outside of this one event, but a mention at that article is certainly merited, and he is a plausible search term. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the outcome of delete, a redirect would indeed make sense. — Paleo  Neonate  – 23:16, 31 August 2020 (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.