Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Selby


 * 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

John B. Selby

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BASIC, none of the citations are substantial, they are about the general topic of aces, which there were a lot of. I looked at Eastern Approaches, again he is mentioned on a few pages in a 600 page book. In my opinion this does not meet WP:Basic as the citations are trivial and do not support his notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces No consensus on the notability of Flying Aces Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jamesallain85 (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep long-established that Flying aces are notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when does simply being a Flying Ace make a person notable. An ace must have 5 aerial kills, Selby barley met the minimum. Nothing notable considering achievements, rank, or awards, just his Ace status. Again this goes back to the standard placed on other military biographies and notability. If a US Navy Captain and submarine commander with multiple ships sunk and was awarded two Navy Crosses fails to meet notability, I cannot understand how a run of the mill Ace with 5 kills and nothing else is notable. Does being in a book that lists all aces make a person notable in itself? Please explain how one is notable and the other isn't. Jamesallain85
 * Who is this USN captain? Given two Navy Crosses has generally been held to be notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you're talking about Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree. This couldn't possibly be WP:POINTY could it? Note that most editors so far have !voted keep for Tyree. I'd be surprised if it was deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alan B. Banister was also nominated in the past. Another page I worked on, Albert H. Clark was deleted and in my opinion more notable than Selby. I think the community should form a more objective standard so people do not contribute only to have their work deleted. Jamesallain85
 * It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that WP:SOLDIER (which would have covered Tyree and Banister) was deprecated, but WP:POINTY nominations are never helpful. I'm not sure, however, why you think Clark is more notable than Selby, who outranked him and was more highly decorated than him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * these come across as WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, which don't fly. If you raised this discussion because you were frustrated about a different one, I guess that's understandable, but if you don't have any specific arguments about why this particular article ought fails our notability criteria (as opposed to observations that other articles were deleted, about subjects which you think were more notable), it would be a good look for you to withdraw this to avoid wasting any more of our most precious commodity: volunteers' time. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  14:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In this instance I felt compelled to make the nomination to establish a standard which is missing. I normally avoid WP:POINTY nominations, but if the standard changed then it is a legitimate nomination. Alexander K. Tyree was deleted and if the bar is being set that high then a lot of pages should be nominated. I do not like in general the idea of nomination for deletion when historical value is there. In the instance of Albert H. Clark, his achievements should be notable, when he sank the Sakito Maru, he wiped out the entire Japanese 18th Infantry Regiment. Had he survived the war patrol he would have likely been awarded the Navy Cross, but his accomplishments only became known later. As far as wasting volunteers time, that is exactly what has been happening to me, again and again, the issue should be addressed so people that contribute stop wasting their time because of silly nominations Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the way to go about a change like that. Please consider withdrawing this nomination, and starting an RfC at MILHIST or similar. Girth Summit  (blether)  14:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I made specific arguments about the citations being trivial and of little substance, which they are. Two of the books are about Aces in general and the third source is an autobiography that mentions the person in the article a couple of times in 600 pages. If this is the standard for notability I am very confused when I compare it to other actions made. I just don't see this as notable. If Aces are notable then it should be documented. As far as starting a RfC, I agree it would be a good idea, I am not sure of how to do it.Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you're not sure how to do it, you can ask for help (the folk at the WP:HELPDESK are really helpful with things like that). An AfD discussion is not a proxy for a properly formatted RfC; even if this goes your way, all it will demonstrate is that the community thinks that this particular person doesn't meet the existing notability guidelines, it won't do anything to change those guidelines or to prevent other articles from being deleted. Again: please consider whether this is really the tack you want to take. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was able to start a conversation, but it doesn't seem to be much interest in solving the issue. So most likely the issue will perpetuate and pages will continue to be arbitrarily deleted.Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't know anything about a general consensus on the notability of flying aces, but unless the OP is able to expand upon why they believe the subject fails BASIC, I'm of the opinion that this should be kept. As it stands, the article is supported by two reliable sources (both offline, so AGFing that they give the subject significant coverage). One of them is a primary source (it's an autobiography), so we can say that the current sourcing doesn't meet BASIC, but the threshold for deletion is that sources must not exist. This isn't a BLP (the subject died 30 years ago), and it isn't promotional, so I don't think that it's doing any particular harm by existing: it's entirely possible that there are more offline sources that give him coverage, so unless the OP is saying that they have done an exhaustive search of offline sources covering this topic area and can find no more mentions of the subject, I don't see any compelling reason to delete. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable as a flying ace and some coverage in RS (Shores & Williams at least). Would suggest moving to a better name though e.g. John Selby (RAF officer), the initial for the middle name seems to be an unusual way of disambiguating a British subject. Zawed (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Indeed. We have long held that being a flying ace equates to notability. Many AfDs have come to this conclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been brought to my attention that actually there isn't a consensus. MilHist:RfC on the notability of flying aces Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the RfC was inconclusive, but AfDs have clearly produced a consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, I am not aware of a separate notability standard for aces (none of the people asserting it exists have linked it) and the subject isn’t currently passing WP:GNG. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus at AfD is just as important as written policy. But here are some examples of where being a flying ace has been said to make someone notable: Articles for deletion/David Luther Burgess, Articles for deletion/Frank Ackerman Hill, Articles for deletion/Neville Bowker, Articles for deletion/James Victor Gascoyne, Articles for deletion/Arthur William Hammond, Articles for deletion/James McKinley Hargreaves, Articles for deletion/John Russell (aviator), Articles for deletion/William Drummond Matheson, Articles for deletion/Hugo Broch. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Aces High is not really about the general subject of aces, it is a series of potted biographies of aces, with an entry of a paragraph + a table of credited kills. There are a fair number of entries in Volume 2 of Shores et als comprehensive Mediterranean Air War 1940–1945 about Selby, mainly about air actions he was involved in, but also including his takeover of command. I've added these details to the article. This coverage may get past the requirements of GNG, while Selby is also likely to be covered in histories of 73 and 23 Squadrons, serving as commanding officer of both.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - per wp:wedonotdeleteaces. 'Nuff said. - wolf  20:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'm not a fan of the automatic retention of aces, but it does seem to be an established convention as indicated by Necrothesp above. Hence the weak keep. Intothatdarkness 16:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep He had quite a substantial (eight paragraphs) obituary published in The Times "Group Captain John Selby, Thursday, Feb. 21, 1991, Issue: 63947, Page: 16" Piecesofuk (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep not on any "automatic" aces retention policy (which doesn't exist, articles should be kept or deleted based on GNG) on the presumption that the eight-para Times obit provides enough material on his early and later life (which should be added asap by anyone that has access, I'd do it, but don't). There is more than enough in reliable sources on his RAF service (both already in the article and presumably in squadron histories, given he was the CO of two). Alsos agree with Zawed the article needs to be moved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't think there should be an "automatic" aces retention policy necessarily, but Selby appears to be passing the GNG between the Shores sources cited in the article and the obituary referred to be Piecesofuk. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in case of doubt, I lean towards inclusion MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2021 (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.