Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter I. Lawson

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. I find the list of newspaper sources unconvincing since the coverage in each is trivial (like a caption identifying Lawson in a group photo) and the sum of several zeros is still zero. However, there is more merit in the paragraph from the Charles Francis book. It is debatable how much weight this should be given, but the majority of the participants here have considered it sufficient to be a basis for non-trivial coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walter I. Lawson[edit]

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

Walter I. Lawson (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) and dePRODed. Sources 1 and 2 are from CAF a User contribution site so not RS. 3) his mother's obit isn't linked so have no idea what it says. 4) is a very brief mention in a local paper. 5) is RS but is a mere listing. 6) is about the crash in which he died. 7) and 8) are an author's blog with just a passing mentions of him. 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. A Google search reveals nothing of note. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - In addition to the sources above, I identified a 1-paragraph bio in this book[1] and a smattering of other mentions in academic sources about e.g. leading particular missions. Taken together, I would characterize the coverage as "non-trivial, but passing and not in-depth". Following WP:BASIC, ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.") I think they just clear the bar. Suriname0 (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable airman, fails GNG. I have read Suriname0's argument above, but fall on the other side of the question of notability. There is not enough in the reliable sources independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC as explained well by Suriname0. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Peacemaker67 and nom. Like Peacemaker, I don't feel this clears the bar. Intothatdarkness 22:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking in RS and SIGCOV even considering the paragraph in the book reference. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Francis, Charles E. (1997). The Tuskegee airmen: the men who changed a nation (4th, rev., up-dated, and enl ed.). Boston: Branden Pub. p. 278. ISBN 9780828320290. CPT Lawson was another pioneer of the 99th, who received very little credit for the part he played in carrying the battle to the enemy. .... Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th. In combat he distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots.
The Congressional Gold Medal only confers notability if only awarded directly to an individual and does not do so for groups. For WWII service alone, Congress has awarded Gold Medals to Chinese-American servicemen (up to 20,000 members), members of the Civil Air Patrol (200,000 members) and the Montford Point Marines (20,000+), among others. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom are the highest civilian awards in the United States but we also have a N pass per WP:NEXIST and for this Airmen's historic contribution to the integration of the US Army Air Force. Cheers Lightburst (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED applies, belonging to a notable organization does not confer notability on individual members. A unit award of the Congressional Gold Medal to the Tuskegee Airmen does not satisfy #1 of WP:ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay not a policy. WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are actual policies we can apply here. Lightburst (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED is a WP:COMMONSENSE essay developed from numerous deletion discussions. You have already stated elsewhere that "One day I hope we can create an article for every last one of these heroes." so your !vote is not based on policy but WP:ILIKEIT. Mztourist (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More essays and more WP:ADHOM ? Lets let some other editors have a say. Lightburst (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to let other Users have a say, but cannot accept you repeatedly misrepresenting the Congressional Gold Medal as satisfying #1 of ANYBIO or just being a member of the Tuskegee Airmen as satisfying #2 of ANYBIO. Mztourist (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You poisoned the well with the first sentence of your rationale. See I too can repeat myself over and over. It seems you cannot resist attacking a rationale that differs from your own interpretation. Be confident in your prods and AfDs. It is likely that a few more editors will be along soon. This back and forth is useless and mind numbing. Lightburst (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No wells poisoned by a completely factual statement. I am perfectly confident in my PRODs and AFDs. Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Throwing around Nexist, Atd, Preserve, and Anybio without demonstrating their applicability is no substitute to providing reliable sources and significant coverage. With regards to Anybio, there are no RSs showing that an award granted after the subject's death and not to him specifically (he is not mentioned by name on the award) makes him notable. As for the rest, the few RSs available seem to contain only a handful of sentences outlining WP:ROUTINE job and career developments. The rest are just image galleries or unreliable sources like CAF. Avilich (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Suriname0 Keep. Fulfils WP:BASIC. That source does say that he "distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots". In combination with the other references and the Congressional Gold Medal, I see no good reason to delete this. Behindthekeys (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Francis is such a great source, why hasn't it been added to the article? The main sources used are still non-RS (CAF being the primary offender), and many of the links to the American Air Museum in Britain aren't supported by the site itself. The squadron information hosted by that site is also a direct port from Wikipedia, and content also appears to be user-submitted as well. Intothatdarkness 18:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Suriname0. Passes WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Suriname0. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per explanation of Suriname0, this passes WP:BASIC. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the purpose behind BASIC is "can we write a factual, neutrally-written article that contains enough encyclopedic information to inform a reader about the topic?" Upon reading the article and reviewing the citations, the answer is "yes." I agree that being part of a large group of medal recipeints does not necessarily meet ANYBIO absent other indications of notability, but this honor, combined with BASIC, indicates that Wikipedia is improved by the inclusion of this article, and would be lessened by its absence. If the information contained in this article were controversial and unsourced by reasonable standards, then I would feel differently, but this has not been demonstrated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC states "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." if you actually look at the sources it is clear that those requirements are not met. Mztourist (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Frankly, WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE are often invoked in contexts where they make little sense. It could be said, for example, that sources pertaining to Franklin Pierce are simple routine run-of-the-mill coverage from newspapers and books that report on every President of the United States. It might be true, even -- but it would be irrelevant to notability. Like the concurrent nomination of Willie H. Fuller, there isn't a really cogent argument against the best sources presented (i.e. the ones given earlier in this discussion). Surely, some of the sources are not so good, and surely the article can be rewritten to avoid them. I am not seeing a real issue with that. jp×g 00:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cogent argument is BASIC which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." requirements that are not met for Lawson or Fuller. Mztourist (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You keep selectively quoting BASIC. It's fine you don't believe the first bullet point is applicable in this case, but some of the rest of us believe that it applies. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any more (or less, for that matter) true. See WP:BLUDGEON. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be reasonable dispute whether the provided sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Given the discussion on this aspect is essentially assertions to two contrary positions (and since discussions are not votes, so comments asserting "per X" when X's arguments are not convincing or have been disputed are not considered), and there is no analysis of each individual source (see Template:source assess); it seems most prudent to relist, because, to me, the discussion "seems to be lacking (convincing) arguments based on policy".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regards to Suriname's source, which seems to be the sole reason everyone is voting keep, this is the extent of the coverage it offers about the subject's career as an Airman: Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th. In combat he distinguished himself as one of the most aggressive and daring pilots. That's it: his unit number and some rhetorical flair. The other sources that have been made available to the moment are as follows.
  • CAF, website with user-submitted content, unreliable
  • A tiny newspaper entry with a passing mention of his name among others, reporting their enrollment as trainees: trivial coverage
  • A museum database, with only a portrait, dates of birth and death, and unit number: trivial coverage
  • Congress resolution awarding medal to the airmen: primary source, no actual coverage, fails 'not inherited'
  • Aviation Safety Network database entry of the airplane in which Lawson died: no coverage at all
  • Aircraft-themed website, used only for that digression on footnote A and does not mention the subject at all
  • 'Liberty Lady Book' website: coverage amounts to the same as Suriname's source, adding that he died in an air crash
  • Dryden 2005 ref, apparently a first-hand account of a colleague of his: most of the subject's mentions are passing, usually just outlining his presence in some random event or recollection – run-of-the-mill and superficial coverage

It's not too inaccurate to say that the coverage so far is quite unsatisfactory. The length of the 'Military career' section is kind of a dead giveaway already. Avilich (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree with the thrust of this comment. I haven't been following this discussion closely, but I voted "Weak" Keep based on a simple source I found in a few minutes of searching. Other Keep voters would be well-served to identify additional WP:SIGCOV in the many book sources that may discuss Lawson, or to bring the academic mentions of Lawson's actions during the war into this discussion so that those can be discussed substantively. (To be clear, I DO think the two-sentence "rhetorical" flair constitutes significant coverage, but it's certainly not enough to write an article around; we need the rest of the passing mentions in other sources for that. All the unit affiliation and congressional medal stuff is a red herring imo, and doesn't really influence my consideration of whether Lawson meets WP:GNG, which I think they [just barely] do.) Suriname0 (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess to not even slightly understand what "rhetorical flair" is supposed to mean here. There was information about the man, specific to him, but it doesn't count as information because it had rhetorical flair? jp×g 00:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I concur with Avilich. Like many of these articles there is an over-reliance on non-RS sources (CAF being one), inherited notability based on unit affiliation, and what often amount to namechecks with some rhetoric thrown in (the Francis source, which hasn't even been added to the article as of the time of this post). The American Air Museum source sounds impressive until (as I pointed out before) you dig into it and discover it's based on user-submitted content (including elements ported directly from Wikipedia). This is a problem with many of these articles, not just this one. Strident defenses and poorly-chosen comparisons (found in another AfD for Tuskegee Airmen) don't change the fact that the sourcing for these articles is incredibly weak in many cases and often circular. Intothatdarkness 00:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly, Avilich's analysis is on the money, most of the info about this guy is sourced to websites of dubious reliability, with wikifunctions or otherwise relying on usersubmitted content. I have no idea what the "Lillian Lawson Obituary" actually refers to, since there is no provided weblink or even a name and date of a newspaper edition in which it might have been published. The substance of the Francis book mention is that "Lawson was sent overseas with the first group of pilots of the 99th". The bulk of the sources (and arguments for keep) here seem to lay on the fact that he belonged to a group of 922 people and that the group was important. The Lady Liberty Book and site are WP:SELFPUBLISHed (therefore not reliable): The author's Linked-in page says that Beaver's Spur Publishing is "A single member Limited Liability Company formed by author Pat DiGeorge to publish her book LIBERTY LADY: A True Story of Love and Espionage in WWII Sweden." -Indy beetle (talk) 06:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I figured that, after this many bytes of verbal combat, someone surely would have bothered to do a newspapers search. Apparently this was not the case; I am currently going through about fifty results for Lawson and incorporating relevant ones as references to the article. jp×g 21:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to come up with a couple newspaper references about Lawson. They include significant coverage of him, his career, his family, and the events described in the article. Oh, did I say "a couple"? I meant "twenty-three". It's baffling that this AfD could plod on for sixteen days, with nobody on either side doing basic literature search. Pinging previous participants who expressed concerns about quality of sourcing (@Peacemaker67:, @Intothatdarkness:, @GPL93:, @Avilich:, @Indy beetle:, @Mztourist:): here's what you were looking for.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] jp×g 21:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the provision of the newspaper sources. These are mostly sporadic mentions or simply "here is a photo of some Tuskegee Airmen, Lawson is one of them". -Indy beetle (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cleo Lawson, 76, Widow of Tuskegee Airman". Newsday. Suffolk Edition (Melville, New York. 1994-02-22. p. 81.
  2. ^ "More Tuskegee Men Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 5.
  3. ^ "8 Cadets Get Wings". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-08-15. p. 1.
  4. ^ "What Negroes Are Doing". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-08-16. p. 11.
  5. ^ "Fourth Class Starts Tuskegee Air Course". The Selma Times-Journal. Selma, Alabama. 1941-12-12. p. 2.
  6. ^ "2 Area Airmen Among 12 Hurt in B-50 Crash". Sioux City Journal. Sioux City, Iowa. 1952-02-28. p. 8.
  7. ^ "Release Names In Omaha Crash". The Beatrice Times. Beatrice, Nebraska. 1952-02-28. p. 10.
  8. ^ "Dead In Crash Of B50 Bomber Are Identified". The Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, California. 1952-02-27. p. 27.
  9. ^ "Airmen killed in crash are named". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Fort Worth, Texas. 1952-02-27. p. 4.
  10. ^ "Wrecked B-50 Ramey Plane". Tucson Daily Citizen. Tucson, Arizona. 1952-02-27. p. 13.
  11. ^ "Victims Identified In Crash Of B-50". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1952-02-27. p. 2.
  12. ^ "Air Force Shift Now Under Way; 66 Moved". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1949-06-18. p. 4.
  13. ^ "Five Pilots of the History-Making 99th Return to the United States". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1943-11-06. p. 5.
  14. ^ "Nose Dive Of Plane Into River Ends Graduation Hopes Of Youthful Cadet". The Detroit Tribune. Detroit, Michigan. 1942-06-13. p. 1.
  15. ^ "Cadet Killed In Army Plane Crash". The Tuskegee News. Tuskegee, Alabama. 1942-06-11. p. 1.
  16. ^ "Two Plane Accidents Kill Three White, One Negro Army Aviators". The Birmingham News. Birmingham, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 12.
  17. ^ "Negro Flier Killed As Plane Falls in River". The Tampa Tribune. Tampa, Florida. 1942-06-09. p. 5.
  18. ^ "Negro Flying Cadet Killed". The Decatur Daily. Decatur, Alabama. 1942-06-09. p. 2.
  19. ^ "Power Line Cut By Plane Crash". Alabama Journal. Montgomery, Alabama. 1942-06-08. p. 1.
  20. ^ "Five Hampton Students Named Air Corps Cadets". Hartford Courant. Hartford, Connecticut. 1941-01-29. p. 12.
  21. ^ "Select Five For Training". Daily Press. Newport News, Virginia. 1941-01-29. p. 9.
  22. ^ "McLurkin-Lawson". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1967-03-26. p. 76.
  23. ^ "Join 99th Air Squad". The Pittsburgh Courier. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1942-01-24. p. 13.
  • Comment none of this is in-depth or particularly significant coverage. The vast majority simply name the subject amongst people who joined the AAF/graduated flight school or those who were involved in plane crashes. I mean, sources 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 are literally the exact same AP report listing Lawson among the victims of the 1952 crash with no additional personal information included. One is his wife's obit and another is a paid-for engagement announcement. @JPxG: which of these actually go into depth? Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all plane crash reports, obituaries of relatives, graduation lists, or plain photo captions. Of course plane crashes are interesting events in their immediate aftermath, whence the media coverage; should the other victims ("Two Plane Accidents Kill Three White, One Negro Army Aviators") have wikipedia articles as well? Lawson is gets no more coverage in any of these sources than in those already provided. Instead of WP:REFBOMBING, can you give WP:THREE sources definitely showing that he stands out enough among his colleagues that he in particular deserves an encyclopedia entry? Dying in a plane crash, having relatives who died, graduating and serving in a notable unit are not evidence for that. Avilich (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Avilich: I'll write this as a response to @GPL93: as well. Essentially, what I have is what I've given you here, which is indeed as you describe it. If you don't think the addition of these references warrants changing your opinion, I respect that, and I won't press the issue; I appreciate you having taken the time to read through them, at any rate. jp×g 11:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the WP:BASIC argument put forward by 78.26. Enough sources have been added or mentioned in this discussion to show that Walter I. Lawson is notable and does deserve to have a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment none of the newspaper mentions bring this up to satisfy BASIC, I agree that this is just REFBOMBING. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm afraid that it gets pretty close to passing notability, but not quite enough. However, maybe some of the content could be merged into List of Tuskegee Airmen or List of Tuskegee Airmen Cadet Pilot Graduation Classes? Dege31 (talk) 15:10, 17 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/Walter_I._Lawson&oldid=1062614110"