Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie H. Fuller

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. The article has been extensively edited during the AFD and after the relisting the current versionthere is a clear majority who feel that the current sourcing is of sufficient quality. Not everyone is convinced, but it is clear that there is no consensus for deletion exists. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willie H. Fuller[edit]

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

Willie H. Fuller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio). First 2 sources are CAF Rise Above, a user contributed site so not RS. 3) is just a passing mention in a photo caption. 4) Aviation Online magazine is of questionable reliability and doesn't seem to have been updated since 2017. 5) Troup County sounds reliable but no link or title was given and I can't find anything on searching the site. 6) Getty Images is just a photo. Finally Christian Science Monitor is RS but this is not substantial coverage and just based on an interview with the subject. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members. A Google search shows his name in a few Tuskegee Airmen books but these are just photo captions or lists with no in depth detail Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The majority of the sources are not RS. Doesn't meet GNG. Intothatdarkness 22:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. The sources are not reliable (CAF Rise Above) or in-depth, and the coverage is just WP:ROUTINE career progress. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is unreliable and even then it really just establishes that the subject was an ordinary member of a well known military unit. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Tuskegee airman and was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal 2007. Notable airman based on wartime contribution and their historic integration of the U.S. Army Air Corp. Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congressional Gold Medals awarded to groups do not confer notability for individuals. By that logic each of the 200,000 WWII era members of the Civil Air Patrol would merit an article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a member of the Tuskegee Airmen is laudable and honorable, but not notable. Currently, none of the keep arguments are actually based on policy. Onel5969 TT me 12:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position is based upon numerous policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE – three separate policies. It's the deletion side of the argument which is not based on policy, being based mostly on WP:N, which is not a policy, with a big dash of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your position should be based on a review of the sources which you notably haven't done. As you know WP:N is a guideline, do you really think it shouldn't be followed? There is no IDONTLIKEIT in my nomination or any of the other deletion arguments. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion rationale fails to outline a policy reason for deletion: WP:NOTINHERITED is not based on policy - it is an essay. Policies include: WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Additionally the fact that the author was "indeffed for copyvio" has nothing to do with the notability of this subject. The information is only provided in the rationale to Poison the well. For my own keep rationale: I refer to the notability guideline WP:ANYBIO and I see that the subject passes 1 and 2 easily. 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor ✅, or has been nominated for such an award several times; 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field ✅ Lightburst (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A unit award does not satisfy #1 of ANYBIO which is for individual awards. He was one of a group that made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, so #2 of ANYBIO isn't satisfied either. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously claiming that WP:NOTINHERITED should be ignored, and that notability can be inherited?
NOTINHERITED is a long-respected summary of policies that have a long-standing consensus. If your position depends on ignoring it, that's not a strong position. ApLundell (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ApLundell Read the five pillars WP:5Ps - not one single mention of essays. And then look at WP:N which is the guideline we apply. Here is what our project says about WP:ESSAYS: Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. Regarding established consensus see WP:CCC (also a policy) - consensus can change. I am following the guidelines regarding this subject, please have another look at the article - I did work on it. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you know notability is determined by sourcing which this page lacks. Explain your whataboutism and Ad hominem comments. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, notability is not determined by the sourcing on the page. here. And this is not the article it was when proposed for deletion, either.
First black flight instructor at Tuskegee Airmen.7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not regard the references that you have added as substantial, generally they are passing mentions at most 1-2 sentences. You haven't explained your whataboutism and Ad hominem comments. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)\[reply]
"Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio)" If you can't figure it out, explaining it further won't work either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So just a distraction to avoid addressing the lack of sourcing then, got it. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who interjected fallacious irrelevancies (in your lead), just to confuse the real issues. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep because notable" is not much of an argument either. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, we have been through an infinite number of soldiers who were the namesake of destroyers. And the argument is that there accomplishments mattered naught. Meets WP:GNG. That is a WP:Notability argument. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All those soldiers were deleted because they failed BASIC and having a minor ship named for you in WWII isn't a basis for notability. The same applies here, this Tuskegee Airman fails BASIV and is not individually notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge into Tuskegee Airmen. The nominator's analysis of the sources is correct, of course, and shows that the subject isn't covered in depth in reliable secondary sources. I think the one sentence about Fuller facing racism from a bigoted hotel manager is a good example that could be incorporated into the Tuskegee Airmen section about racism. But there's nothing else keepable in any form. Reyk YO! 19:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to get enough coverage in independent reliable sources. The CAF is by its own description "a 501 (c) 3 Texas non-profit organization dedicated to flying and restoring World War II aircraft," and while well-intentioned seems rather dubious for historical information - it's declared specialty is basically acting as a hobbyists club. Some of the websites ain't worth much (Aviation Online looks rather amateurish, and WW2 multimedia datatbase looks like a passion project of a guy who has befriended some history professors but hasn't actually gotten them to write for him), and the sporadic single mentions in things like the CS Monitor or the inclusion of his name in a caption in the Getty Images database hardly count for anything. The book on LaGrange actually has a fair blurb on him, but the Legendary Locals of Edgecombe and Nash Counties, North Carolina book (also Arcadia Publishing) basically says the same about him but less. I think for the purposes of notability we can only count Arcadia books as one source of notability in instances where they are repeating their own info; I have a lot of experience with this series (own some, they like to do historical series on various localities in the US) and they do have a tendency to mirror information when there is crossover in the subject matter of each book (such as when they do one book on a county and another on a major town within that county). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep http://avstop.com/history/tuskegeeairmen/part5.htm Willie H. Fuller was one of the original members of the 99th Pursuit Squadron He was a pilot instructor at the Tuskegee Air Base that helped mold the pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen into a fighting unit which performed admirably in the European theatre of World War II. Dream Focus 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed that reference in my nom: "Aviation Online magazine is of questionable reliability and doesn't seem to have been updated since 2017". Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Willie died in 1995, I cannot imagine why this would be relevant to a magazine article about things that happened in the 1940s. Moreover, I am not aware of any guidelines saying that sources must be updated on a yearly basis in order to be reliable; this seems like a non sequitur at best. jp×g 00:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge/Redirect into Tuskegee Airmen.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, keep. I think ANYBIO can potentially apply here due to recent improvements and his enduring contribution to the Tuskegee Airmen.Yabunirami (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the pure votes and other similar arguments; the keep arguments are not convincing (since many commentators note that notability is not inherited), or fail to recognise that even if it applies (there is controversy over whether a group award counts for this purpose), ANYBIO is not an absolute. The arguments for deletion or merging are more convincing, but there is no consensus (yet) as to whether deletion or merging should be preferred, so I cannot impose one option above the other. Relisting in the hope of a positive outcome (especially given the "merge" option was proposed only by some of the alter comments and does not seem to have been fully discussed).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is if it is controversial - leave it to an admin. You are an editor and you are not elected to preside over any contested decisions - especially when you extended your comments acting as if you are Solomon. You are not are even allowed to close a contested AfD discussion - yet you say... I cannot impose one option above the other. You will need to either have the community elect you as an admin, or stick to WP:SNOW keeps and deletes. This was a controversial relist - but it may not have been without your extended comments and pontification. I will be done commenting on this AfD now. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, your interpretation of that is fundamentally at odds with WP:NOBIGDEAL (the mere fact of "being an admin" does not grant anyone additional prestige or authority in matters which do not require admin tools, such as relisting or closing an AfD when the result is not "delete") and usual practice (i.e. not being an admin does not restrict anybody to SNOW closes - there are plenty of examples in AfD logs of discussions which are controversial to some extant closed by non-admins; and here I didn't even close it, I just relisted, since this was a few days already beyond the point which it should have been relisted or closed, nobody had bothered to do it, and there was no clear outcome). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACPIT point 4 suggests non-admins are not barred from relisting discussions. Reyk YO! 10:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those interested in the ultimate result of the above side-discussion can look at Special:Permalink/1047863194#RandomCanadian_administrative_actions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those interested can also look here at your overturned BADNAC. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Whether or not RC made a somewhat-silly NAC on an unrelated AfD doesn't seem particularly germane, and this whole line of inquiry seems a little nasty. Can't we just discuss the article about Willie H. Fuller? jp×g 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having read over some of the discussion listed at list of Military-related deletion discussions the author appears to be very focused on deleting articles about Tuskegee Airmen. The format seems to be: Another non-notable Tuskegee Airmen followed by any type of issue that could lead the article being deleted. With so many articles needing attention, the active drive to only focus on deleting articles is concerning. Adam MLIS (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominating an article for deletion because it has an "issue that could lead to the article being deleted" seems fairly regular operating procedure. If the article can be improved; by addressing the nominator's concerns; that would be a very strong argument for keeping, and will probably lead to the next person who wants to close this discussion in a week's time having a far easier job than me. Merely being concerned that there is a "drive to only focus on deleting articles" is not a particularly good reason, nor does it address the concerns about the suitability of this article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adam MLIS by "author appears to be very focused on deleting articles about Tuskegee Airmen" I assume that you are referring to me. I am very focussed on deleting pages where the subject fails BASIC. If you look at all the pages created by the User:Bluecountrymutt, you will see that I have gone through all of them, cleaned up and improved many of them and identified those that I believe fail BASIC and then PRODed and/or AFDed those. Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Adam MLIS, a very gentle reminder to WP:AGF. The nominator has contributed substantively to the Tuskegee Airmen page and to pages on individual airmen; let's keep the discussion focused on whether the article subject has received WP:SIGCOV, a topic on which reasonable people working in good faith can disagree. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These articles came from a CCI investigation, which I've linked to before in the hopes of generating some cleanup interest: Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Bluecountrymutt. Oddly, slugging it out at AfD seems to be much more interesting for many. These articles often share common issues: copyright violations, reliance on a handful of poor (and often non-RS) sources (CAF and related sites being the most common), and inherited notability (the person is assumed to be notable because they belonged to a notable unit). The question of reliance on non-RS sources is often dodged. Some of these individuals are notable, and their articles have been kept. Others are not once you get past the unit affiliation issue. Intothatdarkness 00:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
darkness Read it again please. It is not the article it was when nominated. I hope you take another look - I and others have spent much time updating the article with RS. The person has significance. However, I have really said enough in this AfD - and rather than do a drive-by or slug it out at AfD I have been working on the article daily. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the article...not less than an hour ago in fact. I don't agree that it's improved significantly, but that's not due to a lack of work and effort on your part (and others). It's because there simply isn't much to work with. If there was, we wouldn't need to rely on CAF at all...yet it still lingers in the article. And I still think it's better to get to these articles before they reach AfD...which is why I keep posting the CCI list link and have worked some of those articles myself. Intothatdarkness 01:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I just corrected misattributed information in the article lede...which was part of the original article as created by the banned CCI individual. THIS is why it's better to hit these articles as part of the CCI cleanup as opposed to now. You have to check pretty much every existing source in addition to adding new ones (if they exist). Intothatdarkness 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Finally having time to look at this article, I believe the subject meets WP:GNG, with sigcov in the Cooper book and the Christian Science Monitor article (both cited), in addition to other scattered mentions. Contrary to the nom, the CSM article looks like significant coverage to me, and it appears that editorial oversight and selective quoting were applied (i.e. it's not "just an interview" and should be treated as a secondary source). Suriname0 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content from CSM and Boy's Life is almost identical. Fuller's coverage in CSM amounts to three brief paragraphs including a single generic post-war anecdote, none of which in my view establish him as being notable beyond being a Tuskegee Airman. His individual military notability still appears to be based solely on Tuskegee. Intothatdarkness 22:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For any discussion readers, I want to explicitly affirm that I still find the sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. A source with "three brief paragraphs" devoted to the subject is actually pretty good! (The essay at WP:NERROR suggests "two or more paragraphs of text focused on the topic at issue" as a rule of thumb, which is about where we are with this source.) In fact, relative to other sources used to establish used to establish notability in the AfD WP:BIO-related Keeps I've been involved in, I think the CSM article is well above the line as far as WP:SIGCOV goes. (I've complained before that WP:SIGCOV is the most ambiguous policy on Wikipedia, and absent firmer policy guidance we're forced to interpret by our own standards, which is why I lean on AfD precedent. If the precedent for sourcing standards are higher for soldiers specifically than for other article subjects, as is true for e.g. corporations, I would hope to see that reflected in a notability guideline somewhere, but I'd be happy to be informed by someone more familiar with soldier-related articles. It's an open secret that vastly different standards apply to articles depending on topic area, so to some degree I do want to defer to soldier-specific norms if they exist. My point is that if this were a bio of a living person, the existing sourcing would generally be sufficient to keep the article.) Regarding content overlap, I think it's generally a good thing when we see similar content appear in multiple reliable sources; I don't see any indication that one sources draws exclusively from the other, so I conclude the sources are independent of each other. Suriname0 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CSM isn't SIGCOV by any standard, be it for corporations or soldiers. And Sigcov by itself isn't sufficient, you have to demonstrate that the content belongs to an encyclopedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, an actual policy as opposed to sigcov, a guideline). Significant coverage alone doesn't establish notability, especially if it's all run-of-the-mill content like Cooper 1996 (it just describes his career, but does not indicate why his career makes him notable in a way that others are not). And that's the best source that has been found so far. Avilich (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, this is sufficient sourcing to pass WP:N. The keep voters are providing a more convincing argument. For many years, he was the only black flight instructor in his field, and he was recognized for his services both contemporaneously and in recent decades. Patiodweller (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the sources presented so far are particularly impressive. The ubiquitous CAF with its user-submitted content continues to feature here, as do image galleries like Getty and that WW2 database (there's also a Youtube video). Several sources can be readily dismissed for providing only the briefest and most trivial coverage, such as Fleming 2013 (only says he served on 76 missions, without any commentary), Boys' Life 1994 (one single quotation, not independent), Jet 1993 (his name among several others in a minor honoring ceremony), and CSM (a single post-war anecdote, as Intothatdarkness explained above, and not strictly independent since it has direct quotes with no substantial commentary). The websites AviationOnline and LogicalThinker are probably unreliable, as is certainly Find A Grave. Cooper 1996, the only source to possess anything substantial, fails WP:ROUTINE. The entire article in its current form also fails ROUTINE. So, based on the current state of the sourcing, there's little to indicate that stands out particularly notably from the rest of the Airmen. Avilich (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: deleting things to favor your desire for deletion is poor form. I see you also deleted a photo of Willie Fuller with Lena Horne. The photo is referenced and I have reinstated it in the article. Regarding FAGrave, There is literally a photo of the subject's grave marker on the link. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/182577495/willie-howell-fuller Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was legitimately deleted because its copyright status is unclear. Indy beetle deleted it, you reinstated it, I deleted it, you reinstated it, that's edit-warring. There is clear consensus that it should not be there until its copyright status is resolved. I have now nominated it for deletion. Find a Grave is not a Reliable Source. Adding photos of unclear copyright status is the poor form here. Mztourist (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I have asked you allow others to participate here without refuting every keep argument. Deleting a reference which includes a photo of the actual grave marker of fuller seems exteme, but ok - the information can be verified elsewhere. Deleting a public domain publicity photo also seems extreme. My offer on your talk page stands. This is a consensus based encyclopedia and all depends on who shows up. My fear is that they will be hesitant to participate in what has become a tendentious debate - each keep ivote has a refutation - it is a bit much. I acknowledge my over-participation as well. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, you are lying about the the copyright status of a photo, that's the height of intellectual dishonesty here and could expose us to copyright vio claims. Neither the LaGrange book nor the HuffPost article identify it as a US Gov photo, and yet you repeatedly claim it is. It may very well be, but that is not certain. It was also incredibly misleading of you to originally label that photo with the note "There is not commercial interest in this photo" when it was published in a book by a publishing company (Arcadia) that basically makes all of its money on books of photo collections and when it was the centrepiece of a HuffPost article. If you find a reliable source which indicates its origins as PD then I will happily drop my efforts here. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Lightburst you are asserting without any evidence that the photo is in the public domain. Its clear that you uploaded it and are trying to keep it in order to inflate this poorly referenced page and claim that just because he appeared in a photo with someone famous he's notable. If you want the photo to stay then it is your responsibility to prove that it is in the public domain. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Public Domain- do a reverse google search. Why do you suppose the military took photos of stars with military? To sell them? There are three of you and your desire to erase this article is about the most incredible tendentious behavior I have seen on the project, since the Bachelor Lake AfD. I improved the article, and then moved on, but you three are gardening this deletion. Meanwhile I am editing the Harold Brown (Tuskegee Airman) article. I am not even following this food fight anymore. I only noticed because indy erased the photo again. Take this concern to WP:FFD. Or diminish the article to favor deletion. I am not going to edit war, or continue this tit for tat. Lightburst (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what does your "reverse google search" show? It shows that the photo appears on various websites, but it does not in any way confirm that it is in the public domain. You keep stating without any evidence that the military took it, well PROVEIT, because unless you can show it was taken by the US Government or has otherwise been released from copyright it is not public domain. Delighted that you're improving other notable Tuskegee Airmen pages that are infected with the creator's copyright abuse, but you should not be creating more CCIs by adding photos such as this. Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A photo being reproduced a lot on the internet in no way indicates it’s in the public domain. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The status of the picture has YTBD.
And yet Major Captain Fuller is surely buried in that cemetery. Your repeated insistence on 'policy' that Find a grave is "not a reliable source" may be true, but it really doesn't negate the underlying fact.
To be sure, the national VA burial lookup doesn't include him. We have verified his service, of course. And I have been unable to find any other source on line.
However, gutting the article's contents while an extended and contentious WP:AFD is pending looks like deck stacking. But you know that already. YMMV. But I'll WP:AGF and move along. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fuller left the service as a Captain, not a Major. Intothatdarkness 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7&6=thirteen, if you want to challenge the standing consensus of 6 discussions regarding the reliability of Find A Grave (the last of which was conducted earlier this year), go right ahead. Also, in regards to but it really doesn't negate the underlying fact, we rest on the policy of WP:VERIFY, not truth. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about his rank. I confabulate him with another. But he is buried where he is buried. Find a grave is right. Unless you have imagined a contrary source and result, that is. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're implying I'm imagining sources, I'd suggest you take a step back. I've already had to correct at least three instances of imagination in this article (all related to inaccurate use of sources). And let's ask the difficult question: would Fuller be getting an article if he wasn't inheriting notability from his unit? Without that cache, would the sources be considered reliable and sufficient? I tend to think he wouldn't based on source evaluation. Can anyone demonstrate that the former Confederate Air Force site is reliable? I've found too many errors in their articles to believe they are. What RS there is all stems from his unit affiliation. Maybe someone could find something in his career with the Boy Scouts to bolster his notability (I did a quick search and didn't find anything, but it could be out there). But if the only claim to notability rests with his military career...it just isn't there once you take the unit away. Intothatdarkness 02:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, well, forget about all those sources for a minute: I have found some new good ones. As with the other Tuskegee AfD, a very half-assed newspaper search brought me no less than eight usable references, which on their own seem to support nearly all of the article's content. I've added them, incorporated information into the article, and copyedited it some as well. I think that this renders irrelevant most of the previous kerfluffu over CAF Rise Above (CRA) and Find-A-Grave (which I will not abbreviate). I do not understand how arguments over the merits of sourcing can rage for weeks without anyone having done this. I'll ping previous participants who expressed concerns about sourcing quality to have another look: @Mztourist:, @Peacemaker67:, @Intothatdarkness:, @Avilich:, @GPL93:, @Onel5969:, @Reyk:, @Indy beetle:, @4meter4:, @RandomCanadian: jp×g 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources in question are these: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] jp×g 22:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Exhibit Honors 'Lonely Eagles'". The Times Recorder. Zanesville, Ohio. 1985-01-06. p. 19.
  2. ^ "Cadet Officers Receive Awards". The Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery, Alabama. 1940-05-21. p. 10.
  3. ^ "Willie Howell Fuller". The Miami Herald. Miami, Florida. 1995-01-04. p. 22.
  4. ^ "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.
  5. ^ "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.
  6. ^ "'Lonely Eagles' flew to fight color barrier". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1984-12-25. p. 38.
  7. ^ "Untitled Clipping". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-06-19. p. 4.
  8. ^ "'Capt. Roberts First Negro Squad Commander'——Rouzeau". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-10-09. p. 13.
  • Comment - Since I sometimes find it confusing when presented with a list of refs of mixed relevance, I'll save the trouble for other discussion readers: [1] and [6] are the same syndicated news story, [3] is a bylined obit. The rest are passing mentions. Certainly the obit constitutes WP:SIGCOV and is appreciated for further meeting WP:GNG. (Of course, the other sources may be useful for replacing lower-quality sources in the article as well, but not for establishing notability.) Suriname0 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work jp. I feel silly now that I did not access my newspaper account until today. I only did it to search the 1945 photo of Fuller and Horne. But more exists as the editor above has noted.
1985 Florida
1943 Mississippi
When he got his wings
etc.
And so on. Lightburst (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first one is a photo caption with zero coverage, and last one doesn't even mention the subject apparently...? Do you have a minimum of diligence while doing your research, or do you just WP:NOTEBOMB in the hope that someone (FeydHuxtable below) will be swayed by quantity rather than quality of the sources? All of yours and jpg's sources miserably fail WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE ("Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article"). Finding a picture, his name in a graduation or casualty roster, or a brief quote in an interview does not prove he was anything out of the ordinary. Avilich (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more WP:REFBOMBING. 1 and 6 are the same AP story with just a quote by him. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are namechecks only. The only story of any substance is 3, a short obituary that just confirms the existing page content. While we now have ref overkill of various mundane details, we still do not have a reliable source that he was a flight instructor which several Users above argue is a claim to his notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the suggestion that an article citing sources for its claims is "ref overkill", as this seems to conflict directly with WP:V. The statements made by an article should be supported by references -- there is really no two ways about it. His status as a flight instructor is mentioned in the third reference here (I don't have access to the print sources that were used to write the article before I edited it, so I can't cite them about whether he did so while in the military). jp×g 08:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ref overkill means that multiple refs are given to support the same claim eg. 2nd para of lede with 6 refs, 2nd para of body with 5 refs, 1st sentence of 3rd para of body with 4 refs. The Miami Herald obit says that he was a flying instructor after the war, but the lede states that "He was the only black flight instructor until December 1944" with the unreliable CAF as the only reference for this. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what ref overkill means. jp×g 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Then you explain it. You're avoiding addressing that there is no RS that "He was the only black flight instructor until December 1944" Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an explanation for content that other people put in the article prior to my edits, as I do not own the page. If you have concerns about the way the article's written, the talk page would be a great place to bring them up. jp×g 11:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteable airman & trailblazer. Unconvinced by the delete analyses of the WP:RS. Improvements by Lightburst & JPxG are impressive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moderately/somewhat notable member of very notable group. Yeah, it's not great, and the sourcing is not great, but I don't care: the sourcing indicates well enough that this man did things that would have been all over the press if the press at the time had cared a bit more. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not great" sourcing would seem to indicate a lack of individual notability. Once again, if you take away unit membership you have a rather average pilot with a rather average and short career. I've also seen no evidence of notability from his time with with Boy Scouts. If there was, that might raise him above the bar in my view. But even the laudatory obits don't say much about it. Intothatdarkness 17:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You admit that the sourcing is nothing out of the ordinary, but you 'don't care' and base your keep on a speculation that this might not have been the case in some unimaginable alternate scenario. This is of course no argument for keeping, but it's the most honest one yet, since it's the only one to grapple with the arguments brought against the current referencing, instead of ignoring/dismissing them altogether. Avilich (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment its hilarious that all the !Keep voters still haven't noticed the error on this page. Mztourist (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarity is fly specking as an argument. Stop picking flyshit out of pepper 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing you made this edit: [1], really adds to your argument. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mztourist Such animosity. One would think you would correct the error in the article before you dissect the edits of an editor on an AfD - After all we are building an encyclopedia. I just checked back to see if the tone here changed. Nope. Lightburst (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rich coming from you User:Lightburst. I note you have no problem with User:7&6=thirteen's comments, telling. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as with the other Tuskegee Airmen I am happy to keep these as separate articles as I feel the sourcing is adequate, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. Besides, the article has been significantly improved since nomination for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know that I'd call this significantly improved. Reshuffled, perhaps, but not a significant addition of notable content about the individual. Intothatdarkness 15:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm right on the fence regarding this, I'm not sure. It's probably better to keep than delete in such cases. But as maybe a compromise: (if) deleted, could some of the content be merged into List of Tuskegee Airmen or List of Tuskegee Airmen Cadet Pilot Graduation Classes? Dege31 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be opposed to a list merge for most of these individuals. It at least acknowledges that in most cases any notability comes from unit affiliation. I remain unconvinced most of these people would even HAVE articles if they hadn't been at Tuskegee. Intothatdarkness 15:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, it is not up to you. Incessant repetition only exposes the weakness of your position. I WP:AGF, but enough already. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what repetition? Dege31 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dege31 I was not referring to you. It's like being in a hall of mirrors. It does not add to anyone's understanding, and is unconvincing by virtue of the repetition repetition repetition ... ad nauseum. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Funny considering your 'keep' rationale that doesn't address sourcing issues or notability in any way at all. I was agreeing with Dege31's idea about merging content into a list. And you don't have the authority to tell anyone 'enough already.' Intothatdarkness 20:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Res ipsa loquitur 7&6=thirteen (☎) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination was made twenty-eight days ago, so I think any potential humor has long since been drained from the subject; is there really nothing better for us to do than camp out here and argue? jp×g 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and Avilich have both requested a close, so hopefully it happens soon. Personally, I have said everything I think needs to be said (if it convinces people, I'll be glad, and if it doesn't convince people, I'll still be glad we could talk about it). jp×g 12:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Willie_H._Fuller&oldid=1062614181"