Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mac Ross


 * 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. Evidence has been presented, albeit late in the discussion, that this individual meets GNG, and as such arguments based on ANYBIO, and their rebuttals, are largely moot. A few notes, since the notability of this entire group is being examined at the moment: there is no consensus on whether this individual is notable as a result of the award the Tuskegee airmen received. There is no consensus on whether being a member of this group is by itself sufficient, though the arguments in favor of this notion are stronger. Finally, it's very difficult to give any weight to arguments based on ATD and PRESERVE in these sorts of discussions, because those policies have nothing to say about the question of whether a standalone article should be kept or merged into a larger, and more obviously notable, topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Mac Ross

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BASIC. Yet another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio). Sources are generally non reliable, passing mentions or generic Tuskegee Airmen filler. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members, this is Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There's a good detailed profile of the subject here. The article is already quite well developed and sourced so the nomination is bizarre and fails policies such as WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not RS is why. Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The CAF sources have been removed, they are not needed to establish notability. -- Green  C  04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Lots of reliable sources.  And first commander of the squadron.  Article and sourcing is not what it was when deletion was proposed. WP:Before.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Same generic Tuskegee airmen filler, nothing detailed about him. Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are wrong.   7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You think that is an RS? It also looks like this page is a copyvio from it Mztourist (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, shifting grounds. No reason to delete cited or exists.  If there is a copy vio, that can be fixed, and is no reason to delete. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, "That's some catch, that Catch-22!" Andrew🐉(talk) 14:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No shifting grounds at all. My nom made it clear that the page creator was indeffed for copyvio. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The CAF page for this pilot is a joke...poorly written and garbled in many places (the page for his wife is much better, but again you have the question of RS, and I've found errors in other CAF pages for Tuskegee pilots while cleaning copyvio in articles that were retained). And Together We Served is based on user submissions as well. Aside from namecheck in other sources (and oddly no one seems to be able to produce an RS for his DFC aside from the TWS site), there's a major lack of RS. Intothatdarkness 22:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The CAF sources have been removed. Feel free to delete anything with "cite needed" not needed. -- Green  C  04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's right there in the lead: Ross was the first African American combat fighter pilot in history. And also, per Andrew and 7&6=13 -  wolf  20:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Yet according to the cited source (which is questionable in terms of accuracy), Ross was one of five...not the first. And this must mean Eugene Bullard doesn't count. Intothatdarkness 23:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your disparagement of the sources is unwarranted. In any event, Eugene Bullard served in the French military, not with the U.S.  So he counts, but not in the way you propose.  7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 02:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The wording of the lead was misleading, which I have fixed, but even so the sources are unclear on this point. Intothat correctly notes that CAF is based on user submissions so it is not a reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my evaluation of CAF. I've found errors in their articles while cleaning up copyvios in this slew of articles. Intothatdarkness 14:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem CAF is deleted. No longer needed. -- Green  C  04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Notable and reliable secondary sources abound. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Only that pair of two-line paragraphs plus the city resolution seem to indicate any tangible notability, the rest is mostly just fluff. Some of those works which may look reliable from a glance (5 to 11) are only used in that off-topic digression on footnote A, and don't really cover the subject in any meaningful detail. There are also sources which are self-published (Gatling), and others which are not reliable (CAF and TWS, if the as-of-yet unrebutted statements above are correct). Source 1 may be adequate (7&6 thinks so, Mztourist thinks not) despite its short length, but overall that's really not much to go on. Avilich (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gatling has been removed. CAF has been removed. TWS removed (I think). Lots of new sources added. --  Green  C  04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Avilich. The only claim to potential notability is that the subject was one of several African-American pilots to engage in arial combat for specifically the United States military for the first time. Relevant information from that engagement should be merged in to the larger Tuskegee Airmen article that already exists. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are new sources and new assertions of notability. -- Green  C  04:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. His documented role as the first (or in a group of the first who achieved it simultaneously for accuracy) African American combat fighter pilot passes criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO as we generally document first achievements among minority groups as significant historical achievements within wikipedia. Further, it's not clear to me that the delete votes have convincingly done a competent WP:BEFORE search or seriously read and analyzed the sources available on the subject that have been brought to their attention.4meter4 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite a distortion of facts. The delete voters are the only ones to have done a competent and serious Before – the others have simply thrown around bland statements like 'there are reliable sources' without any elaboration. Your argument is much closer to failing WP:1E than meeting Anybio#2, since the latter explicitly requires significant coverage in reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article as it now stands demonstrates he passes WP:GNG. And his historic trailblazing place in history and personal accomplishments belie your conclusion.  WP:Not paper; WP:Preserve.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ty for proving my point – don't feel shy to point specifically at what makes him notable, as currently most of the article is just filler content covering his graduation, family and associates. And no making up bogus sources, as you did here. See also WP:DON'T PRESERVE. Avilich (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering I just had to remove a source that didn't contain any content the link claimed it did (confirmation of Ross' appointment as a squadron commander...the link was to a gallery page containing one of the same photos that appears on the CAF page for Ross with the same caption), I still have doubts about the sourcing of this article (and others like it). I'd say let CAF host poorly-researched biographies. Intothatdarkness 22:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Mac Ross is in dozens or hundreds of books, should anyone want to look for significant coverage not already included. -- Green  C  21:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're not including the Anime results in that search as part of those "dozens or hundreds of books"? Or the Barbie one? Or the hundreds of simple mentions in photo captions or class rosters (many of which are contemporary and thus possibly primary sources)? And let's not forget the Book of Irish Names. Someone's name in a photo caption does not automatically equal notability, and poor sourcing (like the cite I removed) doesn't add anything to the article. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the dozens/hundreds of books about the Mac Ross, the topic of this AfD, which is pretty obvious. This comment was made in good faith to help readers find reliable sources. I've already found and added 2 more to the article taken from that list. Just as Mac Ross felt that he was on trial every time he flew, anyone voting keep or adding sources can expect resistance at every turn ("Or the Barbie one" sigh). --  Green  C  22:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comparing Keep voters to Ross strikes me as more than slightly dramatic and likely in bad taste. The basic sourcing of the article remains poor, and the additions don't really speak to his basic notability. As a group, the Tuskegee Airmen are notable. Individually, it varies greatly just like members of any famous or notable military unit. Ross didn't survive the war and go on to higher rank in the Air Force (like other Tuskegee pilots), his DFC isn't sourced anywhere other than Together We Served (and it doesn't appear on their current listing for him) and didn't achieve ace status (which seems to confer automatic notability in AfD). Intothatdarkness 22:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Tuskegee airmen are notable based on their wartime contribution and their historic integration of the U.S. Army Air Corps. Tuskegee airmen are also inherently notable based on their collective award The Congressional Gold Medal awarded in 2007. At the minimum we have a an easy pass of WP:ANYBIO. I think the gold medal should end any debate about notability and I have added it to the article with references showing the congressional act and an article which states that the Tuskegee Airmen were posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The secondary source you added does not even mention the subject of the nomination. Avilich (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The secondary source mentions the posthumous award. The Tuskegee Airmen are notable. Lightburst (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An award granted to a group doesn't establish the notability of each individual of that group (especially if it's large), only to the group itself, which already has an article. Avilich (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By that reasoning each of the up to 20,000 Chinese-American servicemen and 200,000 members of the Civil Air Patrol who served during WWII are also deserving of an article, as do each of the 20,000+ Montford Point Marines who similarly integrated the Marine Corps. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe not all 1000, but the first 5 to graduate is a significant stand out from peers. Others were dropped from that first class. It was an historic accomplishment. The article says what a close-run thing it was, how Ross feared being accused of crashing a plane during training and giving critics ammo to say blacks can't fly. They flew under extreme pressure to perform and not make a mistake. Without his leadership the whole program could have been canceled, there were people willing to do so.  --  Green  C  03:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You would have to provide RS about Ross to substantiate a claim that "the first 5 to graduate is a significant stand out from peers". I agree with Avilich and GPL93, the arguments by Lightburst and GreenC are essentially that just being a Tuskegee Airmen establishes notability but that is wrong per WP:NOTINHERITED. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Here: "Lieutenants Lemuel Custis, Charles DeBow, George Roberts, and Mac Ross were the first four to graduate, in March of 1942, and drew the most sustained attention from the press and the black community as a result." -- Green  C  04:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's true then where is it? Thanks for cn tagging the page showing its many deficiencies. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given age, probably not online. I might delete all those sentences, they are mostly not important anyway, but will wait to see what others do with it first. --  Green  C  05:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * GPL93 were the 20,000 you mention awarded the Congressional Gold Medal? Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are alive when awarded, any living member of the unit/group are eligible to receive one. For instance, when the Borinqueneers Congressional Gold Medal was issued, you were sent medal as long as you could prove that you served in the 65th Infantry Regiment during the Korean War. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So 20,000 was hyperbole? In the case of the Tuskegee Airmen they all awarded even posthumously. In addition they broke the color barrier in the US Army Air Force. Undoubtedly a more significant contribution based on the US History of black white relations. And perhps some of the mentioned deserve articles. We should not penalize one because the other is absent. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies as I thought you were talking about receiving a physical copy of the medal. It is technically awarded to all members of the honored group, alive and deceased. So yes, all 20,000 people were honored. Congress is awarding a blanket recognition to the contributions of a group of people when they do this unless they are conferring the medal to specific individuals. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Tuskegee Airmen, especially some of the first, are going to be of historical and social interest, notable by virtue of their contribution to civil rights, military treatment of African Americans, and actual military action. It's worth pointing out, I think, that until WWII (and even thereafter) military action involving African Americans (including the Civil War) was often about them, rather than by them. That is, fighting over their rights, enforcing oppression, or responding to civil rights action. The Tuskegee Airmen represent one of the first instances of African Americans in the military, and even then they faced significant barriers and objections. Does keeping this article mean we "risk" having to cover some other Tuskegee Airmen? God, I hope so. We cover a great many people less worthy of note (who have made a considerably less meaningful contribution to their field) and I'm fine with covering a few more of these guys.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one disputes that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are notable, the question is is Mac Ross personally notable? Which of the 3 heads of ANYBIO do you think he satisfies? Mztourist (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2, arguably 1 too. That others have made the same contribution doesn't diminish Ross' contribution.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 2 is essentially the matter being debated here. He certainly doesn't satisfy #1 as he didn't receive any such individual award. Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Stalwart111Genius level 100. Thank you.Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure, and I think he passes #2. But on #1, WP:ANYBIO simply says, "well-known and significant award or honor"; it does not say the award or honour needs to have been an individual one. I agree that an individual award would put it beyond doubt, but just like winning a gold medal as part of a relay team, or winning a significant industry award as part of a team...  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * #1 of ANYBIO says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" that means an individual award, not being part of a group that received an award, otherwise every member of every group that recieved a well-known and significant award or honor would qualify, which is not the intention. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect that if it meant that, it would say that. It doesn't though. But yes, every member of a medal-winning sporting team is considered notable.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong. On that logic all 1074 Women Airforce Service Pilots, all Montford Point Marines, all 2996 9/11 victims, all 200,000+ Civil Air Patrol members etc. are individually notable. Mztourist (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong? Which part of the guideline did I quote incorrectly? That you would like for it to be interpreted that way doesn't change the wording of that guideline. But yes, by that logic, yes they would. It is up to us to apply common sense.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, completely wrong. The individual needs to receive the award not a group. #1 of ANYBIO states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" if it meant a group then to quote you "if it meant that, it would say that".Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you can interpret it that way, but that's not what it says. At all.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what it says, multiple other users also agree with me on this point. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Like many guidelines and policies it is worded intentionally open-ended to leave room for specific cases to go one way or another depending on consensus discussions. No closer will say Stalwart is absolutely wrong, they will note it is a minority opinion in the AfD. Debates over group awards and ANYBIO go back since the start. For example a physics team share a Nobel or 5 people share a major award - that's why ANYBIO doesn't specifically exclude group awards, there are cases people think are OK. Nor does it specify a cut-off number for group size, that's up to consensus. Stalwart's opinion is valid, but it is minority in this AfD. -- Green  C  04:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All true, though I did say (at the start of this sub-thread) that is was "arguable" that he "also" met #1 of WP:ANYBIO, having already met #2. There is no specification in that guideline that the award should be individual, though I agree that's the sensible and common sense standard to apply in most cases. In this case, it's moot anyway.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - To add to what's already there, here are a couple newspapers.com clips: Airmen of Steel, Philatelic room to honor Tuskegee unit flier, Black History Month: Mac Ross, and Walk of Fame in Dayton Daily News, Dayton Negro First to Join Caterpillars in The Journal Herald (these articles span about 70 years). It's a problem when local coverage is all we have, but this supplements the other sources and claims to notability with several articles specifically about the subject in these reliable, albeit local papers. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 05:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, I've incorporated facts from three of these articles. The Black history Month is a reprint of Airmen of Steel. -- Green  C  17:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2005/02/09/house-section/article/H422-2 The official government website that keeps track of such things says he was one of the "original five Tuskegee Airmen".  D r e a m Focus  21:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Congressional Record keeps track of things read into the record in Congress. As such it's arguably a primary source, and subject to bias as well. It doesn't keep track of who was part of the "original five Tuskegee Airmen", it records that someone said he was. Intothatdarkness 23:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - I sincerely believe there is enough coverage in reliable, independent sources to warrant notability, though perhaps the coverage is less concentrated and more scattered across RS than other WP:GNG cases. I think things like the Dayton Daily News, The Journal Herald, and the university sites are what we should be leaning into. That said, the article is an absolute mess and all the memorial/blog websites out to be purged (Together We Served, etc.). The Francis 2008 citation that uses 9 different pages is absolutely garbage for WP:VERIFY purposes in that format and the actual pages that support the given information need to be narrowed down. Also note that one can always create a list of Tuskegee airmen, I don't think each one is inherently individually notable, but as a group they are. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have never disputed that the Tuskegee Airmen as a group are notable. There is already List of Tuskegee Airmen and List of Tuskegee Airmen Cadet Pilot Graduation Classes. Mztourist (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that, at any rate good to know there is a list article where the less notable ones can be merged. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right there's no question of notability. I've tried to address some of your points by removing some sources and making verification easier. The TWS source remains but now tagged and collapsed into a single cite in one isolated section. I think the most valuable thing of this Wikipedia article from a historical perspective is to get the facts of his death in one place - I doubt the PR agent from the US Post Office was aware of this story or wanted to advertise it when they honored him as a role model for children, though plausible deniability remains. Seems like Col. Davis was trying to cover it up to cover any blame, we'll never know the truth.  --   Green  C  19:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a better source for the DFC, honestly. It's odd it's not reported anyplace else (at least someplace that's RS). And I'd still direct interested people to the link in my comment below. Putting the effort in BEFORE these articles reach AfD seems a better use of time, even if it's not seen as glamorous or attention-getting. It also cuts down on drama and poor (frankly offensive) comparisons like the one made earlier in this discussion. Intothatdarkness 23:09, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd also point interested parties here. Still lots of work to do, and if you feel strongly about these articles it's a great place to start. Intothatdarkness 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.