Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pablo Mason


 * 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. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pablo Mason

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparent violation of WP:BLP1E (article was created shortly after MyTravel/footballer incident). Rd232 talk 04:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination - enough evidence of notability provided here that BLP1E no longer applies; expansion of article and adding sources needed instead. Rd232 talk 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - While it is certainly possible for a single event to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I don't see anything outstanding in this guy's life history at all, other than a history of making bad decisions over and over again in the cockpit. Proxy User (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable unless he writes an autobiography that takes off. Redddogg (talk) 05:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - he has written a notable autobiography. . . Rcawsey (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacking evidence that he has written a notable autobiography. Nothing else.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete brief blip in the news for getting fired as a pilot for breaking the rules. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP Interesting and notable. Puca (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - In what way? Proxy User (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Utter tripe that fails most of WP:NOT, not to mention WP:BLP. Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as BLP1E. Eusebeus (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was very prominent during the First Gulf War. One of the most memorable British characters of that war, always appearing on the news. Certainly not just notable for one event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, I'm sorry, but he was not very prominent during the First Gulf War. Where do you get this stuff? Proxy User (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know where you were during the war, but he appeared in the British media all the time. He was adopted as something of a poster boy for the RAF due to his resemblance to WWII fighter pilots. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP. An interesting and important Officer from the first Gulf War. He has written an autobigraphical account of the War and led many missions during the war. It's important that Wikipedia maintains articles on important military figures such azs this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.73.56 (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonesense - There is no evidence that what you say with respect to this guy has any relitionship to reality. Web searches certainly don't support it. Proxy User (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Web searches! Oh good grief, why would a web search support anything? He was prominent before the internet really got going in a big way. Using web searches as evidence for the notability of anyone who was prominent before the last decade is spurious in the extreme. Effectively you're saying that the notability threshold of anyone who (or anything which) was around before the internet is much, much higher, which is ludicrous. For anything before the mid-1990s (at the earliest), the web only holds information on subjects which people have chosen to write about! It is not gospel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In practice the interwebs is WP's primary source of verifiable information. Because of this the notability of people notable pre-web is harder to verify; if you have a solution for that, let me know! You can provide offline sources for this case if you have them, but your vague remarks about watching TV are merely WP:OR. Rd232 talk 12:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is not true at all. There are things called books and newspapers. I use them for writing Wikipedia articles all the time. In fact, I use them more than internet sources, since they tend to be far more reliable. No policy on Wikipedia says that web-based sources are any more valid than print sources. And this is an AfD discussion - like too many people you are confusing Verifiability, which determines what we put in articles, with Notability, which determines whether we have an article in the first place. They are entirely different things. Verifiability arguments are irrelevant here, since we can easily verify that the man exists; all that matter are notability arguments - whether he is significant enough to have an article on WP. That's what we're discussing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting off topic here, but (a) I merely said the internet is the primary source in practice, not that this was ideal (don't think I implied that either). (b) WP:NOBJ: Notability needs to be verified from reliable sources - this is basic, we don't rely on unsourced assertions of notability. (c) Again, if you have relevant offline or online sources, please cite them. Rd232 talk 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * His existence is verifiable. The fact he has been in the news is verifiable. Whether that coverage makes him notable, however, is subjective. That's the thing about notability - there are no hard and fast rules. That's why we have these debates. How on earth, therefore, could I cite a source that proves he, or anybody or anything else, is notable? That's the ridiculous thing about the deletionists who blithely say "prove he's notable". You simply can't prove or disprove something so subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there's an element of interpretation of guidelines, but the guidelines are clear: notability needs showing from sources (WP:NOBJ) and notability relating to one event should be discounted (WP:BLP1E). Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * keep The primary claim of the nominator that this is BLP1E is simply not accurate. There is coverage of Mason's service in the Gulf War, coverage of the accident in Germany, and coverage of the situation with Robbie Savage. The subject meets WP:BIO and is not WP:BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only 2 sources not relating to the MyTravel incident and it is not clear that either is a reliable source; certainly the Promotions one isn't. The RAF Accident Report is a primary source which doesn't demonstrate notability. Rd232 talk 16:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many other sources about his time in the Gulf War though. See for example . Even if I were to discount the accident there are more than enough sources about his time in the Gulf War. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure what to do now. That looks the start of showing Gulf War notability; with those in the article I wouldn't have AFD'd it. Not sure how to withdraw the nomination now (and maybe should let it finish now anyway). Rd232 talk 16:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The original nom's complaint was of a violation of WP:BLP1E. I also remember Mason being the RAF's poster boy during the Gulf War, however I doubt publications for this exist online. I have found at least three unrelated newspaper articles, from different years, with no mention of the MyTravel incident 1998, 2006, 2007. It seems Mason's self-styled "Biggles" antics have had him (and will probably continue to do so) popping up time and time again. Ryan 4314   (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - A genuinely interesting chap notable for his role in the Gulf War, and we haven't heard the last of him. Not a violation of WP:BLP1E. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.210.180 (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Above IP has only contributed to this AFD (Please replace this message with that template they use in these circumstances). Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Very prominent in the media during the first Gulf War. --Jolyonralph (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the originator of the article, I vote keep for the same reason I created it (1) his significance as a Squadron Leader in the first gulf war, which is well referenced particularly off-net, (2) the significance of the case to air safety procedures, which is wholly referenced on-net to him. Nomination on a WP:BLP1E because it was created after the MyTravel created enough on-net references ignores his gulf war service, or the significance of the case to air law - or to HR law. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, now, but it needs much better sourcing. Rd232 talk 19:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good news, Rd232 how would you feel about withdrawing your nomination, or do you think the article still needs work? I would imagine it'll take a longer to dig up paper sources, longer than the time-limit left on this AFD I fear, cheers. Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to withdraw the nomination, and I think a closing admin will draw a fair conclusion from the above discussion. Rd232 talk 00:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You can ask any admin to do it, or even just put a little note under your nomination up there :) Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * done! Rd232 talk 01:21, 20 March 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.