Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Foster (Australian sailor)

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. There appears to be no independantly sources information here for a merge and the detailed assessment of the sourcing mean that the consenus is that this does not meet notability criteria. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Foster (Australian sailor)[edit]

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

A student at Newington College, who went on to become a mid-level military officer, and in retirement did amateur research/investigation of a sunken vessel. The only in-depth source is an obit by his son ADS54 talk 11:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there are some more sources out there, but it is note clear to me he is notable (but it is not clear to me yet he is not notable). However AE1 Entombed: But Not Forgotten (book) does seem notable - it is cited and reviewed (e.g.[1]). If we establish he is non-notable, could use this article for an article on the book.Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HMAS AE1; I think Foster fails WP:SOLDIER.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He would not pass on SOLDIER(topped at commander), however grounds for notability here would be primarily his 30+ years activity on AE1 (from the tail end of his military career to his death), his publishing in this regard, and various coverage of this.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Nominator overlooks the obligation that those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. Castlemate (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable achievements. his research career gets little third party coverage. fails WP:SOLDIER. LibStar (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I see a lot of "fails WP:SOLDIER" !votes. Have these participants also checked vis-a-vis WP:GNG? It's entirely possible for someone to fail a specific notability guideline, but still pass the general one and, thus, be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As others have pointed out, fails WP:SOLDIER, and does not pass WP:GNG. One obit in a major newspaper does not make someone notable. It sounds like the notable topic in the cited articles is really HMAS AE1#Searches, an article in which his role in the search is already mentioned. No need for a separate article. Kb.au (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge a bit more to HMAS AE1. Does not seem notable outside of this research work. Aoziwe (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Contrary to what Castlemate claims, his actions of creating lots and lots of articles on non-notable Newington College alumni, and flooding Wikipedia with these, are clearly disruptive. There is nothing close to a show of notability for this individual, like so many other articles that Castlemate has created this is a case of flooding Wikipedia with articles on non-notable people, and hoping some survive by overwhelming the system. This is why we should go to requiring that all articles pass through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article falls on the side of notability - I don't think there would be as many delete votes if the author had done his homework properly and incorporated the non-schoolcruft reliable sources in Google into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the attack on the creator. The bio was based on an obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald and said the following on his education: "and was educated at Newington College (1944–1951)." Your attack on me is an appalling example of not exhibiting "good faith". Castlemate (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into HMAS AE1. This is one of those times I'd really like to know what the Fairfax process for obits is - do they search relatives out to write obituaries on people they think are significant, or do they accept submissions? Here it claims they're all written by staff but that clearly isn't true. In this case it's not a bad source but doesn't make much of a case for notability of Foster himself and most of the useful stuff here could be merged into the sub's article. Frickeg (talk) 12:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OAM and other awards received seem to indicate sufficient notability. As with other articles written by this user, it needs a lot of help, but this one seems to have sufficient notability. SunChaser (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This item by the Australian Navy does not mention Foster.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mention any individuals at all. It's an announcement of the discovery of the submarine's remains. SunChaser (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not finding anything which conclusively gets the subject over GNG, but am happy to be corrected if something specialised surfaces (no pun intended). While I agree with the article creator's point that users are free to create articles on whatever motivates them, it's important to note that the subjects of those articles do still need to be notable. "This is my area of interest" is largely the same as "The article is interesting" where deletion is concerned. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (See comments below): I have "looked" for sources that would denote notability. Interesting story and person but the criteria for inclusion, according to WP:GNG, is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", with verifiable evidence. The deletion policy states reasons for delition; #7)- "The Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", and #8)- "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)", and sources for the subject are just not evident. Otr500 (talk)

Comments: John Foster was a sailor, that spent a lot of time researching and looking for HMAS AE1 after retirement, and this caught the attention of not only the Australian Government and the RAN but various others to include the Australian National Maritime Museum. The submarine was found but Foster did not live to see this.

The problems are that while the submarine is historical and the search a great human interest story, the man (subject of the article) does not pass any of the eight criteria we use from the "still considered essay" WP:MILPEOPLE nor GNG. As a sailor (part of the title) the subject is not considered "notable" and the historical records for a biography can not be just a memorial obituary written by the subjects son. Two of the four references on the article return WayBackMachine search sites, and the three awards (including OAM) are not high enough to grant inclusion. The submarine is covered by an article, the subject is mentioned there, and there are sources that back this up. This leaves the "event" of one book as an author and maybe researcher (?) under #4 (c and d)- "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums" but there is only one. Without disregarding policies and guidelines the only criteria we can really use would be to ignore the "rules", claiming that inclusion does improve Wikipedia, even with serious sourcing issues. As stated above, there is no reason to have this article, no matter how much we like it. Otr500 (talk) 06:24, 22 December 2017 (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.