Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Munro


 * 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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn with unanimous keep votes. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Les Munro

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet WP:BIO, speedy tag has been removed so i thought it would be a better idea to discuss it here. Has no sources, and talks very little about the person, yet more about the air squadron he was in. Tiptoety 00:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This nom was originally placed on the one below it, I moved it to the main AfD page. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC) No I didn't, someone else did. I removed the duplicate though.  Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: I moved it, i accidentally placed on the wrong page. Tiptoety 00:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep He's probably the most famous Kiwi pilot of all time, features heavily in Enemy Coast Ahead (and his profile will shoot sky-high with the forthcoming new movie about 617 Squadron), and a 10 second Google search shows dozens of reliable sources about him. How could you possibly think he doesn't meet WP:BIO? —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 *  Neutral  Keep (Didn't realise upcoming movie which makes him notable as consultant). Possibly not enough to merit an article on his own but maybe page should redirect to Operation Chastise which pictures him talking to King George VI, and he is listed in the operational personnel there. 235 ghits, none of which seem to deal with anything much outside his war service . As the last surviving member of 617 Squadron, maybe that's notable in itself, however. --Rodhullandemu 00:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "None of which seem to deal with anything much outside his war service"? But it's his war service he's notable for - that's like saying all the hits on George Bush only deal with his time as President —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see amended POV --Rodhullandemu 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Doesn't look good right now, but that doesn't mean it fails notability. Seems to be very notable in fact.  Jmlk  1  7  00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Whilst not every WW2 pilot is notable, he was one of a limited number of participants in one of the most high-profile bombing raids of WW2. Sufficiently notable for that, anything else is a bonus.  BencherliteTalk 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Has cited 1 source sense nomination. Tiptoety 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)Comment - With all due respect, it was nominated 16 minutes after creation, following the misplacement of a CSD tag and while two experienced editors were working on it.  Into The Fray   T / C  01:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not sure what that means - if you mean it should be deleted because it only has one source, lack of sources is not ever a valid reason for deletion if the sources exist, and it takes all of ten seconds to see that they do. Looking at the article history, I now see that you also tried to speedy it, which was clearly inappropriate. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  01:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per all above.  Into The Fray   T / C  01:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was simply noting that there was now a refernce, meaning you can disregard where i said it has no sources in my nom. Tiptoety 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal: I guess i am wrong, I greatly apologize for myinappropriate RfA! Tiptoety 01:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If no sources is not a reason for deletion, then why does every single page an editor arrives at via a red link state: "Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted"? This, I have oft wondered. IvoShandor 01:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cynically, an attempt to scare people into getting it right first time; more likely, a holdover from the early days that no-one's bothered to change. Only 1337 people can amend the MediaWiki interface, and probably 1332 of them (me included) wouldn't have a clue how to go about it. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  01:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We should get a clue then, it is misleading and confusing, especially to new users. IvoShandor 02:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs more sourcing, which appears available. Renee 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because of DSO and DFC, not the Dambusters raid - his plane turned back! Clarityfiend 02:22, 28 September 2007 (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.