Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Haine

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 keep. Weight of argument supports keeping the article and the nominator has withdrawn the AfD. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Haine[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)

A Distinguished Flying Cross is insufficient to satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OBE too,[1] and he made group captain serving through to 1970.[2] A whole lot of not in depth coverage on WWII - e.g. - [3][4][5][6]. He's not far off from passing NSOLDIER on rank alone (Gp Cpn being one notch down). I suspect there more be more in newspaper archives for the post war service. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tempted to go for keep because he has written a book about his life. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that's sufficient - the publisher Pen and Sword Books is notable (but puts out a lot of ebooks so not all authors or books are likely to be notable); the book doesn't seem to have been widely reviewed. But other awards may establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Distinguished Flying Cross is the third-level military decoration awarded to officers so he passes WP:ANYBIO having received a well-known and significant award or honor. He also passes WP:SOLDIER because he was the Commanding Officer of No. 488 Squadron RNZAF. Explore WP:ATD Lubbad85 (☎) 23:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 00:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with the OP that the DFC doesn't appear to qualify him for SOLDIER, which is quite strict in defining people as notable for having received awards (Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour,[1] or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times -- this does not seem to apply to the DFC, but I'd welcome any correction from someone who knows more about the subject). I think the fact that I don't know whether the DFC is UK's highest award for valour, and the fact that Lubbad has to parrot the exact words of our article on the DFC, both indicate that it is not a well-known and significant award or honor, and so does not meet ANYBIO, and Lubbad appears to have misread SOLDIER as it explicitly defines a substantial body of troops as referring to historical air formation of equivalent size, generally two levels above a squadron. (I definitely also cannot endorse the somewhat polemical and uncivil remarks by Lubbad on the above-linked rescue list, but that's neither here nor there, just explaining how I noticed this AFD.) I was initially going to say "week keep" since I saw the Telegraph article and misread the dates, assuming he received a lengthy profile while still alive; an obituary is not the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the Times article, but if the nom is withdrawing there's no reason why I should put up with this kind of abuse from the trolls who are most fervently arguing for this article to be kept, just for supporting a nomination that even the nominator no longer supports. So consider my !vote withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slow going research since this subject is appearing in books and information is not easily accessed through internet searches. Subject is quite a notable and fascinating chap. I have been adding news and book references and I am going to keep improving the article. Subject also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Many books and news sources call out the contributions and exploits of the subject Lubbad85 (☎) 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lubbad85: I'm finding it hard to believe the subject could meet the criterion you quote above; I'm getting scarcely a few hundred blank Google hits for the book title, which is enough to prove the book exists, but doesn't make him notable as an author.[7] My (non-notable) uncle wrote a book six years earlier (before the world-wide web was as prevalent as it was in 2005) and a similar search brought up five times as many hits. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:BASIC and so should be kept per WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Listing a bunch of terms is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, if you are going to insert humorous off-topic images (or whatever the above is) please take a page from EEng (talk · contribs)'s book and do so in a manner that does not imply that someone else put it there. Placing it far up the page next to my comment may have been a good faith mistake, or it may have been the same thing you forced me to call you out for here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the image has a portrait orientation, it was aligned so that it didn't stick out below the discussion. It was aligned so that its base was level with my !vote and its top was aligned with the rescue notice. As the subject was a member of the Few, the image seems relevant rather than humorous. The caption quotes the Times to demonstrate the subject's notability. Andrew D. (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid such contretemps I try to remember to sign the caption (using the three-~ not four-~ sig, for compactness). E Eng 16:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid signing such quotations because a sig would tend to confuse the attribution of the quotation. As these are supposed to be discussions, not votes, we shouldn't need to spatter them with garish sigs. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Distinguished Flying Cross (significant award). He also passes WP:SOLDIER because he was the Commanding Officer of No. 488 Squadron RNZAF. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Air force squadrons are not particularly large units (World War II era squadrons typically comprised around 100-200 personnel and 12-18 aircraft), and their commanders are not particularly senior. As indicated by the squadron number, vast numbers of flying squadrons were raised during World War II. The commanders of these units are not assumed to be notable given their relatively low ranks and position leading a smallish unit. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Unpingable One Please stop this trolling of me. I already refuted everything in your comment before you made it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I am here on my own. Why are you trolling me? ~~You came here after I had edited!~~ I was unaware you had edited.

I will not feed the trolls.

Spotlight effect? It's not about you.

I can be pinged using [[User:7&6=thirteen]]. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this wasn't about me either? The mere fact that you have been trolling me is not up for debate. In this case you either came here from ARS (you are a regular contributor there), in which case you saw this before coming here, or came here by accident, in which case your just happening to repeat the exact same two arguments I had already refuted is very difficult to take as a coincidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about you. I don't care to see or hear from or speak to or about you. Your self centered paranoia is baseless. If you think I'm trolling you, you know where to go. You keep nattering about this, which is distinctly and unnecessarily unpleasant. WP:Dead horse, please. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete With sadness, he does not pass out notability requirements.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the fact that he was the subject of what looks to be a full scale obituary in The Times means that WP:BIO is probably met. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would remind users this is not about them, it is about Richard Haine DFC, if you have a compliant about user conduct take it to ANI or AE.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would note that this article in its present state is not the same article that was proposed for deletion. Content and sourcing has been vastly improved. More than a 5X expansion. It should be judged on its present merits, not on some evanescent hypothetical. You are shooting at a fast moving target. In that sense, WP:Before should NOW support a keep; this is what the article could become with better research and effort.

He was made an OBE. His career was high level (no pun intended), distinguished, and now detailed in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a new source, a biography in Men of The Battle of Britain: A Biographical Dictionary of The Few which is basically an encyclopedia specific to "the few" who fought in the Battle of Britain. I can't figure out how to link to the page, but type in his name in the search box and it will get there. Should everyone in this encyclopedia be on Wikipedia? No obviously, but this source, plus he was involved in the first fighter attack on Germany of the war, and his later award, and the other in-depth sources set him above the rest. -- GreenC 14:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't access the full article about him in the Times. [8] Hidden behind a paywall. Do they publish as much detail for anyone who dies who isn't significant? Anyway, he is notable for his military career as others have stated clear evidence of. "including the first night fighter defense over Britain, and was involved in the first fighter attack of the war on Germany territory." seems like notable accomplishments as well. Dream Focus 17:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, The Times publishes a few editorial obituaries each day. Today, for example, it has three: Boon Gould; David McNee; Roger Moate – notice that they are all blue links. They are similar to the obituaries in the NYT and, in my view, they are prima facie evidence of notability per WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. Andrew D. (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Obits in major newspapers and the other sources are more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Probably meets WP:ANYBIO but not WP:SOLDIER wrt award and rank - the latter has arguably a higher threshold but does not preclude notability for other reasons. WP:BASIC requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". A full obituary in the Times carries weight, even if it is otherwise a little weak on sources. The subject is at the threshold I think. Therefore happy with a decision to keep. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2019 (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.