Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Sutherland

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Sutherland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a regular Bomber Command member. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear notable for his war service, despite the statement in the lead. He will have been one of thousands of Britishers who served in Bomber Command. The MBE doesn't add to notability, I understand from previous discussions that an OBE is not sufficient in its own right so this will be the same for the lowest class of the order. Zawed (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with two aboveBashereyre (talk) 08:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough for GNG. Intothat darkness 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is weak and reliable sources not found. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above that there is nothing in the article to suggest that he meets any notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC) - See below[reply]

Comment Does anybody here even bother to look for sources? And possible improvements, instead of deletion? WP:Before Shaw, Allison; The Newsroom (3 May 2014). "Obituary: Alec Sutherland MBE, Bomber Command veteran BORN: 19 August, 1922, in Inverness. Died: 16 April, 2014, in Inverness, aged 91". The Scotsman. {{cite news}}: |author2= has generic name (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lengthy obituary doesn't mean he's notable. And casting aspersions doesn't help you case, in my view. Intothat darkness 19:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No "aspersions" intended. Nor was I "making a case." I was simply asking a question. If the shoe fits ... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that you weren't casting aspersions, but conclude with "if the shoe fits" which undermines your earlier denial. I would remind you of your recent warning at ANI. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The obituaries mentioned don't add anything to the article in terms of notability. NOTAMEMORIAL and all that. I did check for RS mention of Sutherland and found nothing that would distinguish him as notable. Obituaries are not neutral, and there doesn't seem to be anything else out there about him. Intothat darkness 01:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the exended obituary in The Scotsman has a lot to say. It goes on in detail about his activities, particularly while in service. And it came out of their newsroom with byline. So it should not be dismissed as a source.

Indeed, he apparently has multiple extended obituaries. I tried to update the article to better reflect that.

Whether Mr. Sutherland meets the thresholds for inclusion of Wikipedia is the remaining question. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lengthy obituary doesn't mean he's notable. Actually, if it's in a major national newspaper, yes it does, by longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple awards and multiple detailed obituaries providing lots of the biographical detail so conspicuously missing from the recent FA. The subject clearly passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited above. Clearly notable beyond being a soldier. Not the article it was when proposed for deletion. WP:Preserve WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone point me to the guideline that says lengthy obits in major reliable publications do not indicate notability? Because that appears to be the guideline the delete votes are based on and I would like to read it more carefully. Thank you.-- GreenC 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay, but WP:OTTO is a good starting point in my view when it comes to newspapers in general. An obituary is not automatically a secondary or disinterested source. In this case, the unattributed obit in the Herald came out before the one in the Scotsman. It's not easy to determine if the first was contributed by the family, and the second one could have been copied from the Herald with some slight modifications. Intothat darkness 16:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an irrelevant essay. The facts and the new and expanded sourcing have superseded the argument.

"North's leading lights honoured". BBC News. December 31, 2008. Retrieved April 2, 2021. A veteran swimmer, a medical professional and a leading figure on the island of Eigg have been recognised in the New Year Honours. They include Alex Sutherland for voluntary services to swimming in Inverness. ... Earlier this year, Inverness Leisure renamed its refurbished boardroom after 85-year-old Mr Sutherland. The Inverness Swimming Club stalwart has been a regular at the pool for many years and has won several gold medals in the veteran sections of competitions.
Patterson, Laura (28 April 2014). "RAF Veteran Inspired Many to Sporting Prowess". The Press and Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2021.

Easily surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant to the question of newspapers and obituaries contained therein. Intothat darkness 18:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

You might read what I posted and the sources. They aren't all obituaries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you are entitled to your opinion and assertion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might wish to read GreenC's question again, which was inquiring specifically about long obituaries in reliable publications. As both were technically from newspapers I referred to that essay. Intothat darkness 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read the essay and while I understand the concern that some journalists write some articles based on hearsay or whatever sounds good without doing much factual verification, there is no evidence of that being a problem in this particular case. -- GreenC 19:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been significantly expanded since the nomination, both with content and sourcing. Perhaps those seeking deletion should review and reconsider...? Also, both Andrew and 7&6=13 make good arguments. - wolf 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOLDIER CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG, WP:NSOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC that in this case come awfully close. gidonb (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please avoid using WP:NSOLDIER. If you actually click on the link, you will find that the guideline is deprecated. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 03:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editors have posted multiple RS with significant coverage. Further, these appear to be more than just obituaries, but full news articles covering the subject's achievements. The Scotsman article alone gives us enough biographical information for a full article. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rondolinda, please provide a rationale for why all these sources do not meet GNG. Your activity on Wikipedia seems to consist mostly of voting Delete in AfD with the same generic explanation and no underlying arguments specific to the case. -- GreenC 20:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There seems to be some coverage in sources. Article could use some cleanup. Please stop using the deprecated WP:SOLDIER essay. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable to me: got a third of a page obituary in major Scottish newspaper (The Herald) https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-herald-1130/20140503/page/18 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing ANYBIO and otherwise; reiterating that NSOLIDER is explicitly deprecated and inappropriate. Vaticidalprophet 12:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An obit in a major national newspaper like The Scotsman has always been held as equating to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. Obituaries in major national newspapers clearly count as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- How does a user that just joined 2 days ago suddenly find their way to AfD? Have they already read all the relevant policies & guidelines, and everything else necessary for an informed !vote? - wolf 14:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  - MADdi0X has been blocked for sockpuppetry. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Make that globally locked (fyi) - wolf 18:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources demonstrate SIGCOV per GNG. Article has been greatly improved since first nom. -- GreenC 03:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has significant coverage in reliable sources such as this: https://www.scotsman.com/news/obituaries/obituary-alec-sutherland-mbe-bomber-command-veteran-1538095 Dream Focus 00:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given the improvements to the article, and the additional sources that have been added which suggest notability that was not apparent when the article was nominated, I now think that the case for Keep is much stronger than it was when I previously commented and I would now lean towards keeping rather than supporting deletion. Dunarc (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significantly improved since nomination and sources exists to meet GNG. Riteboke (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.