Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles William Ledbetter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. ♠PMC(talk) 05:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles William Ledbetter[edit]

Charles William Ledbetter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC, non-notable Tuskegee Airman created by an SPA, source analysis follows:


Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
http://logicalthinker2.tripod.com/Tuskegeeaircraft.html No blog about the planes flown by the Tuskegee Airmen No blog No about the planes flown by the Tuskegee Airmen, not him No
https://gravelocator.cem.va.gov/index.html?cemetery=N901 No unable to assess, dead link No unable to assess, dead link No unable to assess, dead link No
https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c81j9h4r/ Yes Yes No Two sentences about him No
https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ213/PLAW-109publ213.pdf Yes Yes No Law relating to the award of the Congressional Gold Medal not about him No
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/pe/name/charles-ledbetter-obituary?id=27758512 No Apparently published by The Press Enterprise but unclear who actually wrote it No unclear who actually wrote it, reads like a death notice published by his family or the funeral home Yes No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet GNG. I don't even think there's enough reliable information here to do a merge. His WW2 unit is not indicated in any sources (the online finding aid from the California archives source lists subjects but no specific information...which means he might just have had an article clipping or ten about the fighter squadrons). Intothatdarkness 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic lacks sufficient coverage to meet BASIC and sufficient individual distinction to meet ANYBIO. Avilich (talk) 17:14, 26 November 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.