Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Pattison (RAF officer)


 * 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. Sources, decorations, coverage. They prevail in this case. Tone 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

John Pattison (RAF officer)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A relatively junior officer (a major in non-RAF terms). Decorated, but no more than many others (the DSO, DFC combination was pretty common among RAF pilots - had he received a bar to the DSO then I would consider he might be notable enough, as that was relatively unusual). One of the last New Zealand veterans of the Battle of Britain, but apparently not the last. An admirable man, but I'm afraid I really can't see what makes him any more notable than any other WWII fighter pilot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One of many brave veterans of the Second World War, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude, but that has no bearing on whether there should be a separate Wikipedia article about him. Unfortunately, I don't see that this article would qualify under the exceptions to the general rules of notability.  However, I hope that he can be referred to in the article New Zealand in World War II in some fashion.  Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage (per WP:GNG)  Chzz  ►  20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Thank God for men like him, but Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory of everyone who fought in a war. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Excuse me, this was a major hero of the Battle of Britain. Much on him in Google if you include Battle of Britain as a search term. Let's hold on and see if this article can be improved. We have articles on every little video game and not on a giant like this?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There are two sources, both are reliable, and there are citations for both sources,if you google him, you will find more sources. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just because he has an obituary in a newspaper does not make him notable. Yes, there is material about him on the internet, but nothing that suggests he was any more notable than any other Battle of Britain pilot or RAF squadron commander, of which there were thousands. I am in no way dismissing this man's actions (my own father commanded a Spitfire squadron in the Battle of Britain and was decorated for it), but we need more than this to justify an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As these veterans get older and fewer in number, the surviving ones will be more notable as they pass on. This gent was one of the last surviving New Zealand vets of the Battle of Britain. See . The significance of this is obvious from the attention it is getting. Yes, had he passed away fifty years ago it would have been different. Notability in this instance is simply a reflection of current reality and not a slur against those that passed previously, unrecognized. There will be a time when simply being a Normandy invasion veteran is notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Had he been the last surviving New Zealand veteran of the Battle of Britain I would agree with you, but it appears that he isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that there are very few Battle of Britain veterans of any nationality. Let's see what I can find on that.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I count 116 survivors here.. Not clear how many were from New Zealand. I'll admit this does not bolster my argument.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I went back to List of RAF aircrew in the Battle of Britain and counted 85 New Zealand aircrew in the Battle of Britain, of which eight survive. That's a fairly low number, though not as low as I thought. My vote is still keep. maybe a bit weaker but not much. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)(striking out part of comment because of Legion of Honor as noted below)--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say Keep -- this man was a hero, and as Johnny pointed out, there's a lot of info on him out there that we could put in the article to improve it. A nation must know its heroes.  FWiW 98.234.126.251 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This is where tough choices have to be made. It would be impractical for any online encyclopedia to allow an article for every person who did something heroic in his or her lifetime.  For better or for worse, Wikipedia measures a person's entitlement to an article by notability which depends on the cold question of whether that person received significant coverage from multiple verifiable sources.  There are persons who arguably "deserve" to have their own article and won't get one; there are loathsome sons of bitches, like Lee Harvey Oswald, who perhaps "don't deserve" to have an article, and yet they do.  And yet, those are the rules that Wikipedia operates under, and heroism has nothing to do with it.  That said, there is evidence that Pattison did receive coverage in books written in New Zealand about that nation's participation in the Second World War, in the 40s, 50s, and 60s,  .  How much, I can't tell from a snippet view.  Notability as we define it may be proven, but let's not get into the argument that all heroes should have an article.  That's not how Wikipedia works.  Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * He is also a recipient of the Legion d'Honneur, France's highest honor., which was personally bestowed upon him by Jacques Chirac in 2004. That's in the article, buried in the infobox.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Based upon personal recognition by the President of France (as JohnnyB pointed out), as well as notability based on mention in reliable and verifiable sources. Again, heroism and Wikipedia notability are two separate concepts.  Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The Congressional Medal of Honor is the USA's highest award. All winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor are considered notable.  The Victoria Cross is the UK's highest award.  And all winners of the Victoria Cross are considered notable.  I believe it has been recognized that all winners of their nations' highghest award are notable.  I suggest that when that highest award is given to a foreigner the receipient is doubly notable.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as foreign recipient of Légion d'honneur. There are potentially over 100,000 recipients of this order, and I do not think all of them necessarily should have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps those who have the "Commander" order or higher should do so without question. I do not know what order Pattison has, but as Geo Swan says immediately above, giving an award to a foreigner makes it more notable. I have some conflict of interest here: my uncle was a Spitfire pilot killed over France just over 65 years ago, so I am perhaps not entirely neutral on the subject.- gadfium 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, has received enough news coverage to meet WP:GNG: stuff, NZ Herald, TVNZ, TV3. XLerate (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, but it is totally inaccurate to say that the Légion d'honneur is France's highest honour. There are five degrees of the honour, and the lowest are pretty common. In no way is this award equivalent to the VC or the Medal of Honor - it is not even primarily an award for bravery, but one for merit (its closest British equivalent would probably be the Order of the British Empire). Many foreigners have been awarded them (20,000 foreigners were awarded it in WWI; according to the quoted article, 300 were awarded to foreign WWII veterans by Jacques Chirac alone). As to being a hero, yes, he was. So were many other people. Is everybody awarded the DSO eligible for an article on Wikipedia? 870 were awarded to the RAF alone in WWII. Everybody who was awarded the DFC? That's 20,354 in WWII! A large percentage of DSO winners also won the DFC. Come on, this is just not feasible. We have to draw a line somewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As an inclusionist, I'd like to point out that this is completely "feasible". Wikipedia is not paper. - Trevor MacInnis contribs 20:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp, if it is inaccurate to say "France's highest honor," then what should we say? It reads that way in the article now, so I think the point should be addressed. I used that phrase because the source did.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep far more notable than an episode of the Simpsons (and they all have articles). MilborneOne (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As others have shown he meets the basic criteria of WP:BIO being the subject of published and reliable secondary source material, and he meets the additional criteria of WP:ANYBIO having received a notable award or honor. Furthermore, while it may be true that he didn't especially stand out amongst his fellow BoB pilots, this was because many of his colleagues were remarkable also, not because he was unremarkable.--Kiwipat (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the subject of honours, let me lay out my stance. I have written many biographies of people who have received British honours. My criteria for "automatic" inclusion have always been the following:
 * Anyone who has received a peerage, baronetcy, knighthood or damehood.
 * Anyone who has received the OM, CH, CB or CSI.
 * Most people who have received the CMG, CIE, CVO or CBE (although in the earlier days of these awards they were given more freely and not every recipient may be that notable).
 * Anyone who has received the VC or GC.
 * Anyone who has received the DSO, CGC, DCM, CGM or GM (second-level awards) or any combination twice or more.
 * Anyone who has received the DSC, MC, DFC, AFC, DSM, MM, DFM, AFM or QGM (third level awards) or any combination of these and/or second-level awards three times or more.
 * I believe this is realistic. We have to draw the line somewhere. It seems to me that Pattison is getting attention largely because he was a New Zealander and New Zealand has a smallish population and therefore fewer veterans. I suspect that if somebody wrote an article about a British pilot with identical decorations and experience then most people on AfD would be opining "delete". Kiwipat says he has a notable award or honour. Which one? The one that was awarded to nearly 900 of his fellow RAF officers, the one that was awarded to over 20,000 of them, or the one that can be held by over 100,000 people at any one time? Trevor MacInnis apparently says that it is feasible to write articles about everybody who gets a decoration ever. I'd like to see that go to a wider discussion! Technically feasible, maybe. Desirable, unlikely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Clarify The notable award or honor I especially had in mind was the Légion d'honneur. To quote its Wikipedia article "The Order is the highest decoration in France". Also, just because a lot of people have it, does not mean it is not notable. Indeed if the consensus is that the Légion d'honneur is not notable we should delete its article.--Kiwipat (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What rubbish! Of course it's notable. Just like the Order of the British Empire is notable. But that doesn't mean everyone who receives the lowest levels of either order is notable (that's several hundred thousand people). The Légion d'Honneur, like the British orders, is notable at its higher levels, but not so much at its lower. These honours can be awarded for long and valuable service as a gardener or traffic warden! Admirable and useful maybe, but hardly worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Receipt of the lower levels of either order in no way qualifies a person for inclusion on Wikipedia; receipt of the higher levels does. Here's a recent example of an AfD debate which decided that someone with the MBE (equivalent to the lowest level of the Légion d'honneur) didn't automatically qualify for inclusion and a notability debate on the same subject. I think Kiwipat's comment shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how orders of chivalry and knighthood work, which is probably largely why Pattison got so much attention in New Zealand in the first place and why so many people are voting to keep here. The highest level of the Légion is indeed France's highest honour; the lowest level is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete on balance (Keep If it becomes the task of Wikipedia to hold articles on EVERY person who took part in the Second World War (including my Mother and Father who both served in the RAF)). Otherwise DELETE. If the Kiwis want to start a NZ.Wikipedia then they can put what they like in it!!!!Petebutt (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, that's not entirely fair. I'm not from New Zealand. Besides, we're reaching the point at which just being present at certain WWII battles may indeed be notable enough to warrant inclusion. This is why I changed the lead of this article to state that Pattison is one of the few survivors from NZ of this particular battle. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (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.