Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Edward Jones (2nd nomination)

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. -- Lear's Fool 03:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Edward Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable stub article. Victim of September 11 attacks but does not meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also, article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating individually based upon earlier AFD. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was an astronaut, and is notable for that reason independently of the events of 9/11. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Being an astronaut is not criteria that proves notability. He wasn't even part of a manned mission that took place; his mission was canceled and he never went into space. That declaration does not address anything within WP:NOTABILITY. There are no reliable sources showing significant coverage of this person referenced in the article, either. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Cullen on this one, that Colonel Jones would have been notable as an astronaut, even one whose mission to space got cancelled. We have hundreds of articles in Category: American astronauts. I'll concede that I can't find any essays or common outcomes concerning astronauts, as we do for athletes. The history of this article is interesting [1]-- apparently, back in Wikipedia's first year, we had someone who wanted to create pages for all the 9/11 victims and started on that task days after it happened. It was 2 1/2 years before anyone noticed that he had trained as an astronaut too. Prior keeps, and there have been several, have been based on the fact that he was part of the astronaut corps, not because he was on Flight 11 [2]. Too bad that this one didn't get named Charles Jones (American astronaut), as I doubt that anyone ever called him Charles Edward Jones except his mother. Mandsford 01:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that caused his scheduled spaceflight to be cancelled. Cullen328 (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Someone who "would have been notable" had x or y happened does not make that person notable, nor does it fulfill the notability requirements already stated. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response Those who complete astronaut training are considered astronauts and are notable, even if their mission is canceled. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response—Simply being an astronaut (or completing the required training) does not meet notability guidelines and is not discussed in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Sottolacqua (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Notability (Astronauts). Oh, wait, that doesn't exist. Delete. I think the memorial aspects of being a 9/11 victim have been addressed here and elsewhere, so otherwise, simply a WP:GNG failure.
Keep This page was nominated at other times as well. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/more_911_victims_2 is about him only, and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Charles_Edward_Jones as well. Notable for being an astronaut. All astronauts have their own articles. Dream Focus 02:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MEMORIAL is not intended to prohibit articles on subjects who otherwise meet the GNG, even if the circumstances surrounding the death may generate a substantial share of the relevant coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per reasons given by Cullen & Dream Focus --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that astronauts are not currently listed in the relevant 'automatically notable' guidelines doesn't mean that they aren't automatically notable, it simply means that nobody's bothered to propose/consensus that they be added. Probably because they believe that it is WP:COMMONSENSE that they're already in there and so don't know that they aren't. They should be, and as an American astronaut, flown or not, he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Suggest renaming to Charles Jones (astronaut) once the AfD closes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the individual components of his notability might not stand on thier one (more about this in a moment), combined, they surely meet the GNG. His Air Force career doesn't seem to meet WP:MILPEOPLE (being just short of the general officer minimum to be presumed notable), and I think consensus has been established that not all 9/11 victims are automatically notable (though I disagree with that). I think I have to agree with the others on the astronaut notability: having been selected and trained is probably enough for notabilty, even if his flight was cancelled. Combine that with the two "almost but not quite" points and you have a solid keep. It doesn't seem to be a MEMORIAL issue, and there aren't any other deletion rationales presented. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:20, 16 February 2011 (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.