Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Russell (aviator)


 * 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) 02:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

John Russell (aviator)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason

Article lacks reliable source(s) to prove subject is a flying ace.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment doesnt "theaerodrome" listing five victories http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/russell.php provide a reliable source? MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: There seems to be a consensus in the Assessment department that "theaerodrome" is not a reliable source because of its lack of a bibliography.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lack of sources in the article is not a valid reason for deletion. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lack of sourcing is a reason for deletion. "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd that you did not read the second sentence of the section you just cited: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable"! User:The Bushranger's statement was entirely correct. It is not sourcing that indicates notability, but availability of sourcing. Lack of the former just indicates it has not yet been added, which is indeed not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not at all, I did read that and the following bit which says "...once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". (The article has been in existence since 2009 but the majority of expansion was within the last two years by the nominating editor). GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not sure whether I support it or not, but we do generally have articles on all aces and it does appear he was. For consistency, we therefore either need to delete all of them or none of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: All World War I aces do NOT have article&mdash;only those who also received honors and/or awards.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which appears to be a rule you've made up yourself, given the requirements concerning awards under WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did make an editorial decision to apply the first requirement for notability from WP:ANYBIO to winnow out notable aces.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - not sure why we are thinking of deleting this one. He has achieved the standard of 5 kills and, way before the Internet age, online sources were always going to be tough to find. Unless there is doubt abut key facts we should keep. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2013 (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.
 * 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.