Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Hite

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 redirect to Doolittle Raid. Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Hite[edit]

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

In a similar manner to the discussion and conclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard E. Cole, this biography fails the notability test of WP:SOLDIER. It should be redirected to Doolittle Raid per WP:ONEEVENT, the same result as Richard E. Cole. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a very similar case is under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Thatcher. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the nomination is fatally flawed: Hite was a participant in the Doolittle Raid (see WP:SOLDIER #5). Subject is obviously a figure of historical significance, and it should be noted that this AfD nom appears to be motivated by the desire to win an edit war. [1] The nominator ought to know better and should be given a caution per WP:POINT. Belchfire-TALK 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Edit war" is with a banned user who was banned for sock-puppetry and vandalism. All the editors who want to keep the article in the article's history is one person. Do you research before going off on an editor.Bgwhite (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. The user User_talk:199.106.164.143 is not banned. Yes, you should do your research. Belchfire-TALK 09:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Redflyer22 and his puppets are banned. The user has been using IPs since then to make his point, including insults, vandalism and taking people, including me to ANI to plead his case. The point being is you automatically accused another editor in an edit war. Assume good faith unless you have evidence otherwise. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doolittle Raid. Per nomination. EricSerge (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears reliably sourced (meeting GNG), individual was recipient of a Distinguished Flying Cross. --Nouniquenames 23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One DFC does not meet WP:SOLDIER which requires one MOH or several second-tier honors. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hite easily meets the requirements of WP:SOLDIER.

"In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they:

5. Played an important role in a significant military event;

Belchfire-TALK 23:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he was merely a co-pilot on a raid in company with other aircraft then I do not think that this is sufficient to qualify under WP:SOLDIER. After all, a great many men have participated in notable military actions and most do not have an article. Is there something other than that he survived to qualify him? --AJHingston (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per No unique names above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't pass WP:GNG. There are 3 refs. One is unreliable. One just lists his citation... along with everybody else who received a citation. He was one of 80+ people on the raid. Are we going to list everybody who played a role in a notable battle or raid? Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? NOTPAPER --No unique names 22:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Taking part in a notable event does not automatically make a person notable. Being the co-pilot of one aircraft does not equal an important role. Even commanding an aircraft wouldn't equal that. And a single second-tier decoration is not sufficient for notability either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree redirect and merge anything not already in the other piece. --Sonic2030 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The 4 references come from 3 different sources. Only one of the references, #1, provides any significant coverage of him. References #1 & #2 though are not independent of him as they are from the website of the child of one of the raiders. #3 just mentions that he was one of the 8 raiders that were captured. #4 is the citation for his DFC and from the looks of it was just boiler plated with a majority of the awards. I do not see significant coverage of him in reliable sources to support an independent article, but there is enough to redirect the page to the operation he took part in. GB fan 14:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not policy. GregJackP Boomer! 15:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY. Funny I bring it up since I agree with you, but fair and balanced, y'know. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly does the biography meet GNG? There should be multiple reliable sources discussing Hite's life in detail, not in passing. The Doolittle Raider website dedicates a page to Hite but that's all I see. You would have to find at least one other detailed source and you would have to make sure the Doolittle Raider website qualifies as WP:RS. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 20:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:GB fan. The sources aren't enough to indicate Hite's notability. City Of Silver 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Persons who are only mentioned in primary docs like genealogical records or family histories are excluded from Wikipedia but this subject is not in that category. There's the opportunity for some encyclopedic info about the PoW experience that doesn't fit with the Doolittle raid article because of the post-raid focus. Why does Wikipedia have a Category:Recipients_of_the_Distinguished_Flying_Cross_(United_States) if this award is common? In any case, if this subject ends up the last survivor of the raid that will add to notability and it would be a pain to have lost the work for an article about the last survivor because of deletion.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said the DFC was "common". No true gallantry decoration is actually "common". But that doesn't mean we should have an article for every one of the millions who have been awarded gallantry decorations over the centuries. There has to be a limit. And the limit is generally regarded as a single award of a country's highest gallantry award, two or more awards of the next highest or multiple awards of lower decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is potential for much information if reliable sources for the information can be found. At this point reliable sources have not been found that provide significant coverage of Hite. There is plenty of information about the Raid itself but only minor information about Hite. If additional information is published/found in the future then the article can be recreated. In the unlikely event that the article is deleted and not just redirected the work that went into writing it is not lost but simply hidden from the view of the majority of viewers. Admins can retrieve the work and provide a starting point for an expanded article. GB fan 12:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as the nomination is fatally flawed. Wikipedia has literally hundreds of pages of people who are of dubious notability. This person is former war hero and POW who participated in one of the most daring military operations in history. After creating the page, several admins complimented me on the creation, yet one admin "bgwhite" took it upon himself to delete the page for no reason and without any discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biciklista10 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.