Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Howard Hughes

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Howard Hughes[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject of article does not appear to meet notability guidelines per WP:BIO Mdewman6 (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With respect to @Mdewman6:, I suggest you review WP:CRIM specifically The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Further I suggest with attention being focused on the biography as the result of ending up on a certial social media cite this will pass the WP:HEY test by the time that this AFD closes. Hasteur (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep from me too. There are sources and information and his actions were historically significant. Nesnad (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, I suggest a close review of WP:CRIM may prove informing. I take the opposite position, that without sustained coverage past news reporting, that it is not notable. Regards the reference to WP:HEY, that might be a good case to argue if the article had in fact improved, but until then, making that reference is itself an argument to delete. Its also just as easy for certain social media users to create a new, higher quality article, making the test moot. Until we see an improved article, its a nebulous hope that maybe in the future the article will be improved so therefore it should be kept. By that logic, we would never delete an article on WP! PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every desereter is notable. No inclusion criteria less exhaustive than that would include Hughes. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it meant to be an agregate coverer of everyone ever mentioned in a newspaper. Nothing more exacting in inclusion criteria than that would justify having an article on Hughes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete! 2604:CA00:15A:16E4:0:0:64:A1D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Disappearance of William Howard Hughes. Article surely fails WP:BLP1E under the current name, since subject has no inherent notability outside of his own disappearance; however, the event itself has received 2 significant bursts of coverage (his disappearance and reappearance) which for me seems to clear WP:EVENTCRIT. In addition, subject's status as an Air Force analyst is only important insofar as how that fact weighed upon those concerned that his abduction or defection had something to do with his security clearance. I agree with those who think that this angle has not been fully explored by the media as yet, and is why I think the article is keep-worthy under WP:NCRIME. StonyBrook (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at this time - I know this isn't what we would call a reliable source, but this recent bloggy-type website post seems to indicate the subject was convicted by court martial 5 SEP 2018 and appeal rejected 8 OCT 2019. The site reposts what appears to be a primary document on the rejection of appeal. IMHO there's insufficient directly detailing RS here to meet BLP, and no mention I can find in news sources after 12 JUN 2018 covering the case, the court or the subsequent appeal. There's little continued coverage, no lasting effect, no geoscope, no indepth, not a lot of diverse, therefore fails WP:EVENT. I did find this 2015 RS which is a tiny bit more than mere mention documenting the crime. I'm of the opinion the sources presented constitute routine crime coverage. If more coverage does appear soon, I'd be happy to be notified of such HEY and would not consider that canvassing. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a no-brainer on BLP grounds as WP:CRIM clearly isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:CRIME; lacks "sustained coverage... which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage." Most military desertions are not "historic" by any stretch, there are thousands every year. Glendoremus (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2020 (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.