Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herbert V. Clark

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert V. Clark[edit]

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

Herbert V. Clark (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. The last of the non-notable Tuskegee Airmen created by the same User (indeffed for copyvio) and dePRODed. Source 1 is CAF a User contribution site so not RS and doesn’t even mention him anyway. 2) a tabulation of aircraft losses, no detail about him other than confirming details of his shootdown. 3) the photo is widely published and is taken from the National Archives here: [1], but the National Archives caption doesn't contain any of the unreferenced detail in the blog (some of which is verified by other sources and some isn’t such as him leading a group of Italian resistance fighters) and so it is not RS. 4) this is a highly dubious source, it claims to be from a Boeing inhouse newsletter interview of his son, but I can't find an original copy and as its from a family member it is not independent. It contains a number of questionable claims including that he shot down 4 German planes, which I can’t confirm anywhere - strange as it would have made him the tied 2nd highest scoring Tuskegee airman. The claimed meeting with Eleanor Roosevelt is also unconfirmed anywhere else. As a result I am skeptical about all of it and think it should be disregarded. 5) Black Knights which I added is RS, but just confirms his class number. 6) Central Arkansas Library, RS but just a photo and one sentence, so no detail. 7) Tuskegee Airmen which I added is RS, but just states that he completed a tour in 1943. 8) The Tuskegee Airmen an illustrated history which I added is RS, but just confirms that he was shot down, evaded capture and eventually returned. There is also African Americans of Pine Bluff and Jefferson County which states that "Clark was shot down while flying over Germany on August 16, 1944. He evaded capture and led a small group of Italian partisans until he returned to the 99th on May 7, 1945." This is not supported by any reliable source, obviously he was shot down over Italy not Germany, presumably he didn’t speak Italian so its hard to see how he could have led a band of partisans. In accordance with WP:BEFORE I added several references after a Google search, but apart from that its all passing mentions. The sources accordingly do not meet WP:GNG as they don't amount to significant coverage as they don't address the topic directly and in detail WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members. The Tuskegee Airmen receiving the Congressional Gold Medal in 2006 doesn’t satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO and just being a Tuskegee Airman doesn’t satisfy #2 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another poorly-sourced article about someone who would instantly fail BASIC if not for a unit affiliation which will lead people to argue otherwise. I'd support a merge of any RS information to a list of Tuskegee Airmen, but there isn't enough here to convey any sort of individual notability. Intothatdarkness 17:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Tuskegee airman - integration pioneer. I am working on the article - added items of interest and references. In the meantime WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. This is a notable Tuskegee airman who easily passes WP:N and any problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He was one of the Jackie Robinson's of the segregated United States Armed Forces. There were a total of 932 pilots who graduated from the Tuskegee program. But only, 355 served in active duty during World War Two as fighter pilots. Clark was one of these 355. He also scored what was one of the first African American BF 109 kills - notable because the Tuskegee Airmen were mostly relegated to escort duty. We have room for such notable military. He returned and became a flight instructor. Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "all Tuskegee Airmen are notable"/INHERITED argument again. Nothing notable about him. Your "improvements" are minimal and don't add any new reliable sources. The one newspaper story you added is after he returned from his first tour. I have doubts about his one claimed Me109 kill and need to see a better source for this. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree.(edit conflict) I added the Detroit Free Press - The Encyclopedia of Arkansas and other solid references. When a nominator has to type a 1000 word dissertation to obfuscate a deletion rationale, I think there is not a good reason to delete. And then there is that adhom in the rationale to poison the well - hoping to make the Herbert V. Clark article INHERIT the stain of the indeffed article starter. I will keep editing. I want to spend less time in the AfD, so I may not respond here. Nobody needs to see more over participation by me. Lightburst (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep editing, but your sources are unreliable, this: [2] confirms that he didn't shoot down a BF 109 as was stated in Encyclopedia of Arkansas (which was there originally). The "1000 word dissertation" is not "to obfuscate a deletion rationale" but to explain why the sources are so poor and dismiss spurious argument raised by you and others on the other Tuskegee Airmen AFDs. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask you not to remove RS information. If you leave the reference you cannot erase other items from that reference. And your requirement of 2 sources for each fact in the article is not a requirement. If it is a reliable source - all the information is reliable. At the moment I am the only one working on the article. I am going to reinstall the information and ask you not to erase it to favor your desire to delete. Lightburst (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised this on the Talk page but will respond here also. The source I provided was prepared by Dr. Daniel L. Haulman at the Air Force Historical Research Agency in January 2008. Clark isn't listed there as scoring a single aerial victory. Meanwhile you claim that Encyclopedia of Arkansas should be relied on for the claim that Clark scored a BF 109 kill. I don't agree, Air Force records are more reliable than Encyclopedia of Arkansas on this point. You state that my "requirement of 2 sources for each fact in the article is not a requirement", where did I say that? We have two completely conflicting claims, Either he did shoot down a BF 109 or he didn't. Find a better source for the BF 109 kill because Encyclopedia of Arkansas is wrong on this point. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel that this has enough reliable sources to pass the GNG. There are clearly several books and newspaper articles that refer to his contribution as one of the African-American pilots who flew combat missions. In particular, I'm sure that having an entry in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, plus a lot more information in its Tuskegee airmen article, proves notability. No thread at the reliable sources noticeboard has ever concluded this encyclopedia to be an unreliable source. Wikipedia guidelines should be similar to those of other encyclopedias, so the fact that Clark has an entry in another major encyclopedia is of great significance when it comes to notability. Patiodweller (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the other similar AfDs that ended with deletion, the available coverage fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. He is included in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas because he came from there, but Wikipedia does not have 'born in Arkansas' as an indicator of notability. Avilich (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Patiodweller please read his entry at Encyclopedia of Arkansas which states: "Herbert V. Clark was a member of the Ninety-ninth Fighter Squadron from its inception. He is shown here as a major, the rank he held upon retirement. " and "Herbert Vanallen Clark (1919–2003) of Pine Bluff (Jefferson County) was born on March 16, 1919. Clark was the first Arkansan to have graduated as a cadet to become a fighter pilot. As a member of class 42-F, he was part of the pioneering group to go directly from the Civilian Pilot Training Program (CPTP) into basic training in 1942. Clark was the first Arkansan of color in the Army Air Corps to be assigned to the 553rd replacement training unit at Selfridge Field, a segregated military facility located about twenty-five miles north of Detroit, Michigan. Clark was a member of the Ninety-ninth Fighter Squadron from its inception and was one of the first black pilots to have shot down an ME-109, a premier German fighter." that's it, hardly indepth coverage. Also the statement that he shot down an ME-109 is clearly wrong as shown by the Air Force Historical Research Agency source that I added. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC) I also note that it is stated that on the Encyclopedia of Arkansas page that articles "are written by volunteer contributors who receive a payment of 5 cents per word." So there are serious questions about reliability especially if you are financially incentivised to write more. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are enough book sources cited that if they do indeed cover the subject (WP:AGF), then this passes WP:GNG. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay and is subjective, whereas GNG is policy. NemesisAT (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold of you to invoke AGF while misrepresenting GNG as policy, ignoring that I cited ROUTINE as well, and completely overlooking the nom's analysis of the sources. Presumably you didn't look at any of them. Avilich (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:NemesisAT you say "there are enough book sources cited that if they do indeed cover the subject (WP:AGF), then this passes WP:GNG" so you are just assuming that they cover him, meaning that you haven't actually looked at the sources. I don't see how you can !vote Keep when you haven't even read the sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions in 3 books doesn't amount to significant coverage. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cant see anything in the article that makes him stand-out against the thousands of wartime airmen for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The Encyclopedia of Arkansas has a paragraph on him in an article on Tuskeegees, and one blog post cited purports to reprint a Boeing company newspaper article which is a feature on him, but everything else is sporadic, with either single mentions or no mentions (like this source which has been added to the article) or just outright blog posts. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indy, if you look at the article's Talk Page I had to add that in to counter the incorrect claim in Encyclopedia of Arkansas that he had shot down an Me-109 and it also shows that his son's claim in the Boeing newsletter that he shot down 4 German planes was BS. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, but I believe if a claim is highly doubtful either qualify it or leave it out. I don’t think it’s good practice to cite a source in article to discuss what does not appear in it. -Indy beetle (talk)
  • Keep [3] Page 74 Lieutenants William A Cambell, Span Watson, and Herbet V. Clark became the first Tuskegee Airmen to complete their tour it combat and move on to other assignments. As mentioned in this AFD already, not all of them got to be fighter pilots, that quite a notable achievement given the racism of the day. Getting a Congressional Gold Medal proves someone is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The fact that others got it does not make it less important. Dream Focus 03:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They completed a tour, how is that "a notable achievement"? As has been repeatedly stated a unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal does not satisfy #1 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark did not get an individual gold medal from Congress, his unit did. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on the arguments made above, it seems there is sufficient reasoning to keep this article. - wolf 03:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on the grounds that the content in the sources given is too thin to meet the requirements of "Significant coverage". GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of significant coverage in RS (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone know how many combat missions a fighter pilot had to fly before being allowed to return from active duty? How many of them achieved this? Is it notable? Fighter pilots had to fly more missions than bomber crews before earning this. There should be a government website somewhere listing how many missions each pilot went on. Dream Focus 14:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was notable you should have no difficulty finding reliable sources establishing that, otherwise this seems to be heading in the direction of WP:SYNTH. Mztourist (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone does find some information on examples of tour lengths they can add it to United_States_Army_Air_Forces#Combat_crew_rotation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the source currently used in that article (Little, 1968) has some pretty detailed information that for whatever reason wasn't added to the article as it exists. The standard when Clark would have been there looks to be 50 sorties and/or 150 hours. Given the sort of action units were seeing at the time I doubt it was unusual for a pilot to make those numbers. Intothatdarkness 22:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (and add his unlinked name) to List of Tuskegee Airmen. There were around a thousand Tuskegee pilots, hundreds of whom saw combat. Not all of them warrant an article, and the weak sourcing put him squarely in the that category. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific as to which part of the discussion you are putting forward as to reason for retention? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire discussion, to be clearer, the back and forth, the give and take. Seems that this could have easily been kept without relisting. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The entire discussion" is vague and uninformative, how do you see that the sourcing satisfies BASIC? Mztourist (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should upgrade to Strong Keep per the discussion as it unfolds below. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge: this article is on the threshold of what I would consider WP:SIGCOV -- some quantity and quality of coverage, but still left wanting more. I think it barely passes the threshold for inclusion. But if not, there is enough verifiable information here that this should be WP:PRESERVEd. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I came here to improve the article. Just want to point out that verifiable information about this man's story was removed as "irrelevant" by the nominator.[4] I think we would have a disagreement about what's relevant. If you really believe that offering some narrative context to the man's story is irrelevant and this should be a sanitized article with only numbers and dates, that's one thing. But if you push it to be a bare bones database article, and then insist on deleting it, without even considering a merge... well, I would question whether you're operating in good faith. I'm going to disengage and continue improving articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Shooterwalker much of the information you added was plainly incorrect. I deleted the claim that he had shot down an FW-190 because this is not supported by the AFHRA or any other reliable source. I deleted "His family prayed for his return every Sunday" as irrelevant. I deleted "he was found alive when the Allies went into Italy. He was able to rejoin his family for Christmas in 1944" because he clearly did not rejoin his family for Christmas 1944 and we have multiple sources saying that he only returned to Allied lines in May 1945. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed some of the bad sources and unverifiable statements mentioned in the nomination, but what remains is still insufficient to establish notability. The Encyclopedia of Arkansas, which only has a short and ordinary biographical sketch, apparently does paid submissions and Mztourist seems to have demonstrated it's reliability is questionable. Caver 2011, Horman 2001 and Stentiford 2012 each contain only one or two passing mentions in completely ordinary circumstances, and the Haulman source only has his name in a database. Pearson 1944 is a newspaper picture with a caption, and this new source by Shotterwalker seems not to be independent.

    It's dubious that, even when put together, these sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV, but even if they did, they would do so in the sense of quantity, not quality. The article is basically a collection of ordinary events that don't stand out for importance, and so notability guidelines like WP:ROUTINE ("Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable") and WP:BASIC ("trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability") are not satisfied. Neither of the WP:ANYBIO criteria are met either. Nobody here would be arguing otherwise if he hadn't belonged to his famous unit. Not one of the keep votes so far are convincing. Avilich (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep per WP:GNG. Sourcing (and the article in general) has improved a good deal since it was nominated. Clark seems to have a unique story that has been covered in several sources, including books, newspaper articles, and academic research. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you could possibly form that view, he still lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and his story is not covered in any detail in "books, newspaper articles and academic research." Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking my own rule here, but "I don't see how you could possibly form that view" isn't building a WP:CONSENSUS and isn't assuming good faith. You absolutely do see how we can form that view: if you stopped removing verifiable content that you think is "irrelevant", you would easily see why people believe that the significant coverage threshold has been passed, and that the article would consist of more than bare bones dates. It's fine to disagree, and I certainly would prefer you stopped removing the content, but you don't need to hound every editor who doesn't share your view. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please describe which and how sources establish notability exactly? Evidently you didn't read my source analysis immediately above yours, let alone any of the actual sources in the article. Where on earth are these "books, newspaper articles, and academic research"? The books in the article certainly do not present a "unique story" (again, just passing mentions); the rest I'll assume you're inventing. Avilich (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the invitation, but I'll decline. More interested in improving the bio. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I see how Pete Forsyth and several above say that and agree, Keep, see also [5] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One single passing mention, literally no coverage whatsoever. Avilich (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that can be concluded by that false claim of yours is you have no access to the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"One single passing mention" (let alone "no coverage") is incorrect, because the index clearly shows that Clark has been discussed on several pages. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is almost never mentioned individually, only among listings of several unit members, and there are virtually no details of any accomplishment of his. Closest thing there is to actual coverage is that brief notice on page 166. Avilich (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And there are people who support WP:PRESERVEing that "actual coverage". Again, there can be good faith disagreement on this. Your view is clear, but repeating it doesn't eliminate people who believe in good faith that there is enough here to support an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Run-of-the-mill trivia is explicitly categorized under WP:DON'T PRESERVE. The onus is on you and on anybody voting keep to show that the sources provided meet even the most basic notability guidelines. Your call to AGF doesn't inspire confidence when trivia is advertised as significant coverage and when you yourself assume bad faith in response to the nominator editing some of your contributions. Avilich (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many disagree with you. There is significant coverage, found in multiple sources, on multiple published pages, and does pass the notability guideline, as seen by multiple editors. Your analysis has been found wanting by multiple editors, and appears untrustworthy since you said something false. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking on that google books link gives me "No results found in this book for Herbert V Clark" when I take off the quotes I get a photocaption in which he is mentioned as not present and single sentence mentioning Clark alongside two other pilots assigned to 553rd RTU. That is not "significant coverage". GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As others have already noted and conceded, there are multiple pages, he is in the book. Do the work to get the book, if you can't use google. 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before accusing me of making misleading or false statements without elaboration (twice already), you might want to explain why a source whose coverage of the subject is limited to "They [a group including the subject] too declined to return with the 332nd when it left on Christmas Eve" meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. Before insinuating that I'm a propagator of falsehoods, you might want to disclose (in the interest of transparency) that you yourself are only here in the first place because you saw Dream Focus complaining here that this article is nominated for deletion. Since neither DF nor his message are neutral or impartial, you were inappropriately notified, so ideally your vote should be discarded outright--if not simply for your impertinent and misleading statements, then at least by what led you here in the first place. Avilich (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the second time you are false. I am most certainly not here because of seeing anything Dream Focus wrote. The nominator decided to put a link to this AfD on Jimbo's page. I followed the link in what the nominator wrote. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it wasn't the nominator at all, it was Dream Focus who posted it there and framed it as an undue deletion effort. And still no discussion on the sources I see. Avilich (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone lacking access to the A-Train book, a free account at Internet Archive will get you access: [6] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First mention is a picture (88), the second a roster (89), the rest are passing mentions (166, 182) or trivial career happenings (118: crash-landing maneuver). Avilich (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book did not find them "trivial", it found them worthy of noting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book found them worthy of noting because "Tuskegee Airman" is a criterion of inclusion in it. But "being a Tuskegee Airman" is not a measure of notability on Wikipedia. And routine career events don't cut it either. If it were anybody else from a different unit, nobody would be arguing for notability using the same standards you're applying here. Avilich (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. Your argument amounts to, he is not notable because he is a Tuskegee Airman. When sources name him and discuss what he did specifically, they disagree with your false premise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument definitely is not "he is not notable because he is a Tuskegee Airman". I and others here have improved many of the Tuskegee Airmen pages created by the same User, however in doing so we identified a number of pages where notability is not satisfied and this is one of them. Many of the Keep !votes are made on the basis of the non-existent inherent notability of just being a Tuskegee Airman, rather than looking at source quality.Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peteforsyth this comment from you: [7] indicates that you didn't even read my nomination. Look above and you will see that I wrote "the photo is widely published and is taken from the National Archives here: [8]." Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: to those researching the article and the closing admin: Another participant in this discussion (whose vote above is "delete") has now twice reverted my attempt to add information pointing to a primary source. The first one, I assumed was a mistake, but the second one is clearer. Strikes me as odd, that someone would both vote to delete, and actively interfere with making source materials more visible to readers and editors. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bad show to mention an editor but not by name so they are not notified. Worse to impugn motives. We cite secondary sources, that the secondary source references the primary source is not relevant to the ref. There is no obstacle to improving an article while it is at AFD; until it is deleted, or not, it is still visible to readers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not impugning motives, just trying to keep track of source materials, which have been much discussed and critiqued (granted, that it's among an avalanche of personal comments). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Avilich There's really nothing that demonstrates WP:SIGCOV. The subject would merit inclusion in a list, but not a stand alone article. The only reasonable source of significant coverage is the Encyclopedia of Arkansas and I find the arguments that it is unreliable compelling. W42 16:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick newspaper search finds numerous references to him during WWII - the best of which is when he suddenly reappeared after being missing for 9 months - though there's other coverage when he was serving in Italy, and when he disappered. I've added a reference to the article. Seems very cut-and-dry to me ... not sure what would make this particular article so contentious. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing there that wasn't on the page already. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a significant, independent, reliable in-depth source. If you think that was already on the page already, then you, User:Mztourist, should withdraw your nomination. Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You added a newspaper story that just confirmed what was all already on the page. Nothing there that would prompt me to withdraw the nomination of this unremarkable pilot. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a significant, independent, reliable in-depth source that goes part of the way to meeting GNG? 9 months of the war with guerrillas in Italy - that alone is pretty remarkable for a pilot! What is it about these pilots that makes you so diehard to delete them, in abeyance of Wikipedia guidelines? Nfitz (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The story was provided by the Fifteenth AAF in Italy, so its WP:PRIMARY, which explains why it reads like a propaganda puff piece. We are not "diehard to delete" pages, we are just ensuring that BASIC is satisfied and that is a Wikipedia guideline. Mztourist (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As to how uncommon it was for downed aircrew to join (along with escaped prisoners of war) the Italian partisans , that could be checked in a work such as Among the Italian Partisans: The Allied Contribution to the Resistance. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to be disturbed, User:Mztourist on how hard you are reaching to delete this article. There's certainly other sources for this in books, such as Make a Difference by Henry Foster (doctor) and Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.: American by Benjamin O. Davis Jr.. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beyond disturbed that when I point out that your "best of which" newspaper story is PRIMARY you then pivot to a book by someone who vaguely knew him as a child (Foster) and a book by Davis which isn't included on the page. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why does finding additional sources disturb you? Nfitz (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Finding good quality sources doesn't disturb me at all, however you finding a PRIMARY propaganda piece and trying to pass it off as a reliable source does disturb me. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's your issue with the Davis book - what difference does it make about being in the article or not? Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe Davis' book adds to notability then add it and the relevant detail to the page, don't just claim that has significant coverage of Clark without proving it. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added a reference that's better. There are other secondary references already in the article. I don't want to ref bomb this. Feel free to improve the article by adding the source, if you feel that's necessary. But note that the source not actually being referenced in the article is not a basis for deletion (WP:CONRED). Nfitz (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So glad to see the bar for significant coverage dipping ever-lower. Intothatdarkness 21:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Shooterwalker as I have pointed out to User:Nfitz, that story in the Pittsburgh Courier is provided by the Fifteenth AAF in Italy, so its WP:PRIMARY and doesn't count towards notability. Do you really think they investigated what Clark had done or just accepted his story at face value as a feelgood piece for the folks at home? Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh User:Mztourist, would you remove anyone only ever mentioned by Bede, because there's only one source? Nfitz (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean and throwing out whataboutisms doesn't distract from the fact that the newspaper story you championed is of negligible value. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% disagree with your fallacious claim that the 1945 in-depth newspaper article is of negligeable value. There are numerous other post-war sources that confirm this - not to mention newspaper reports after he was shot down noting that they were MIA. Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I have told you repeatedly, the story comes from the Fifteenth AAF in Italy, so its WP:PRIMARY. Its a press release from the USAAF's information/propaganda department. It is not a story written by a reporter for the Pittsburgh Courier who investigated the content. No-one disputes the basic facts that he was shot down, was missing, evaded capture and returned to Allied lines in May 1945. However the details of him joining partisans, sabotaging Axis forces and being "Squadron Commander" (whatever that means) cannot be taken at face value. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the "facts" that you have taken issue with have been added to the article from this reference. Nfitz (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't pass the notability test, in my eyes. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2021 (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/Herbert_V._Clark&oldid=1054787341"