Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen J. Baggett

Add links
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 no consensus. There is no consensus about notability or whether the article should be about the event rather than the person.  Sandstein  06:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owen J. Baggett[edit]

Owen J. Baggett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His claim to have shot down a Zero with a .45 was written up in Airforce magazine, but his military career doesn't appear to have any other notable achievements. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see anything that makes him any different from vast numbers of other pilots and POWs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject is not notable per WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. This article appears to fall under WP:BLP1E, and as such the event does not appear to pass WP:EFFECT. Additionally, although the subject appears to have co-authored a book, the subject does not appear to pass WP:AUTHOR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the addition of multiple reliable sources, I have changed my opinion to Weak Delete, although there are other mentions of the subject, most are passing. There is the "Commander for a Day" article, but I don't know if that article could be considered significant coverage. Additionally, I am not sure that the Obit would not fall under WP:ROUTINE, or WP:NOTMEMORIAL, even though it does clearly pass significant coverage; now if the obit was carried in a more major publication I could be persuaded to changing my opinion to WEAK KEEP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obit in the San Antonio paper, but it is behind a paywall, so I'm not sure what it says. GregJackP Boomer! 02:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A link please.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found another copy of it here and will add to the article. GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing stands out as notable compared with thousands of other airmen and pow. MilborneOne (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I added several refs and could add more, but in any event, his story appears in numerous books (4 cited as refs), magazines, reliable websites, etc. WP:BLP1E is not an appropriate objection, as the subject of the article is not a living person. The WP:EVENT is also notable, as shown by the cites listed. GregJackP Boomer! 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. One of the few sites that can be accessed is his obituary. Being mentioned in several books about the war doesn't cut it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Google searches turned up no evidence of any notability except for the shooting event, which is only mentioned briefly in reliable sources, nor any evidence that the subject stands out significantly from his many fellow soldriers and POWs. His military career before and after the shooting incident was not out of the ordinary, and he does not meet the requirements of WP:SOLDIER, or any other notability guideline, for that matter. The shooting incident itself is not notable enough to add any substantial notability, and fails WP:EVENT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER....William 00:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:SOLDIER is an essay. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Spartaz Humbug! 07:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC) (was listeted by GregJackP)[reply]
    • How do mentions = significant coverage in the terms required by GNG? What about the ONEEVENT argument? How does your vote overcome that? Spartaz Humbug! 10:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you not consider this [1] to be significant coverage about the guy? And its not just about that one event. Dream Focus 10:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's just a war story. What makes it significant? If he had an obit in a major national newspaper, that would make him significant. A short mention in a local paper? No. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Don't know, since it is significant coverage per GNG (as I noted above) and the event is notable in and of itself. GregJackP Boomer! 10:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 13:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the "GNG" coverage is either an obit or a retelling of the legend of him shooting down a plane with a 1911 (WP:ONEEVENT). OhNoitsJamie Talk
  • keep multiple references to him in reliable sources. ONEEVENT notwithstanding, a single event can be very notable - this one has been discussed numerous times, in numerous sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reliable references to him in reliable sources. Notable for a unique event, but still worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rescope so that the article is about the incident, which appears notable, not the person. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SOLDIER is just an essay, not a policy, and so is just a few editors' version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with no general authority or force. The subject appears in multiple books and so easily passes WP:BIO. Our actual editing policy is to keep such material, not to delete it. Warden (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Bushranger above. This is a BIO1E case, but there is coverage in sources, so an article about the event is appropriate. Distant second choice would be an outright keep, but I don't see deletion as appropriate where there is this level of independent coverage. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subject appears to cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. Notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Owen_J._Baggett&oldid=1088290934"