Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greayer Clover


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Greayer Clover

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Why "Santa Monica Airport was originally named Clover Field in his honor" is a mystery unexplained by his article. This appears to be his only real distinction. He fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep or Merge & Redirect to Santa Monica Airport. Subject has received significant coverage per WP:GNG in a major news publication, the Los Angeles Times. Additionally, it appears that early after his death his writings were published. If there is a determination not to keep the article, perhaps a redirect can be left to Santa Monica Airport, and content can be added there in the history section regarding its original namesake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Good searching, RCLC! I have expanded the article and added the references you found. I think it now meets the notability standard, with an airport and a park named after him - especially considering the dearth of material likely to be found online for someone of his generation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The LA Times article verges on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the book doesn't appear to be particularly notable. A (small) merge and redirect sounds okay. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Obits have been used in the past on other articles to establish notability, with others where the Obits are the primary source of content verification. NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to sources, but it does apply to articles. If this article is not kept, then the verified content should be merged, and a redirect left in the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As RCLC points out, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to sources. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, the LAT article is not an obit (which are often discounted for notability, as they may be a kind of obligatory eulogy at the time of the person's death). In contrast, the LAT article was written many years after the fact, about the stained-glass window and memorial park at LA High. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. Article establishes sufficent notability to be retained. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Per MelanieN, mostly. Also, his book has at least one citation in a scholarly journal as a source used extensively to attest to slang used by American soldiers in WWI:  He attests to such gems as bus: airplane, archie (passive): subject to anti-aircraft fire., and even the famous Jerry: German or German forces.  In total, A Stop at Susanne's is cited 8 times in this article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per, . Northamerica1000(talk) 23:42, 30 August 2012 (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.