Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flt. Lt. Jeff Clarson D.F.C.

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. Consensus appears to be delete. A few !votes supported a merge to No. 186 Squadron RAF but by the original merge !voter's own admission, it is original research whether or not in the original roster and I don't see any other rationale why the subject is notably connected to the unit and any merger would simply be WP:TRIVIA. v/r - T P 23:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flt. Lt. Jeff Clarson D.F.C.[edit]

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

This is a strange one. It's fairly clear that it's been written as part of a family history ("...he now rests in peace...") but an IP which presumably denotes the article's creator has asserted that the DFC award confers notability. So essentially the question we need to decide is (and I've searched for previous discussions and found none) whether or not the DFC fulfils the criterion at WP:ANYBIO. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 08:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER. Subject also appears to lack "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely to be not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are no citations to reliable sources so this information is not verifiable (although this confirms the award). Beyond that, per WP:SOLDIER, the DFC is not considered to confer notability by itself within the Military history project. As such, the subject needs to be able to establish notability through being listed in multiple reliable sources (i.e. "significant coverage" per the WP:GNG). I have not been able to find such coverage (I found this, this and this, which basically amount to passing mentions), and as such while I'm sure that this man deserves respect, unfortunately it does not seem that he is notable in terms of warranting a biographical article on Wikipedia. I would be more than happy to be proved wrong. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced, lacks coverage, fails WP:GNG. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 15:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AustralianRupert's research seems to indicate we're not likely to establish sufficient notability for an article here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Over twenty thousand DFCs were handed out in WWII. The award certainly does not confer notability in of itself, even were the subject proven to have won it. Ravenswing 07:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't WIN medals, they are awarded, usually without the recipients knowledge.Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being? ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 08:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the usual terminology in Britain (and at least formerly in the Commonwealth) is indeed "won". "He won the DFC" is very, very common, both within and without the forces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For all the above reasons. But there is no reason why the author can't write a List of DFC recipients or something similar. The DFC was not given out willy-nilly but on its own does not confer notability.Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge a DFC the citation is vague(no disrespect to him) "...has completed numerous operations against the enemy, in the course of which he has invariably displayed the utmost fortitude courage and devotion to duty." His service record is online it shows 650 hours as a pilot in Lancaster bombers thats fair achievement of itself. Reading thru the service record there is nothing I can quote that indicates involvement in something out of the ordinary for pilots in bomber command, therefore place to suggest a merger to except the No. 186 Squadron RAF where he would have been in the orignal roster(original research on my part) when it was reformed under bomber command but he left 3 months before it was disbanded again. given the squadron article is a stub and its short history a Pilot from it recieving a DFC/flying 650 hours may be worthy of coverage. Gnan garra 12:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 186 Squadron RAF. Clearly not notable to have a biography article, but Gnangarra makes a good case for a merge. Unfortunately, the article is unreferenced and you can't merge unreferenced content per WP:V. Therefore, as redirects are cheap, I think it's the best option. Jenks24 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No. 186 Squadron RAF, I'd agree with Gnangarra's proposal totally if it weren't for the fact that this content is completely unsourced. Definitely include a brief mention of Clarson based on the source that he found in the target article though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)

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.