Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.

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. Significant disagreement exists in this discussion regarding the depth of coverage the subject has received. Ultimately, no consensus has been established from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr.

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

I don't think this article passes WP:SOLDIER. There are a few articles that specifically mention Fladmark so it may pass GNG but I'll still not certain. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails SOLDIER and GNG. Also, the article's creator has stated he is the man's son, unaware of WP:COI - see WP:ANI#Oscar Randolph Fladmark, Jr., which I initiated. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. BMK (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly GNG notable when the individual gets a notice of his death published by the Associated Press, United Press, and International News Service. Nominator argues that WP:SOLDIER overrides the GNG, which he agrees, it meets. GNG trumps all other guidelines. There appears to be some history between the people here today and the author that was brought to ANI, which may explain why we are here today. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, weren't those stories generated by the crash he was killed in, and not obituaries, per se? BMK (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. They're all about a car crash that killed four people, not about Fladmark in particular, so that does not satisfy GNG. Also, AFAIK, I'm the only one the article's creator has a history with. I didn't initiate the Afd (or even think about it until it was raised by someone else in the ANI discussion). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course by concentrating on his death, you are ignoring the three articles contemporary to his combat awards and the biography housed at the University of Pennsylvania archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said it may pass GNG which overrides everything including WP:SOLDIER. It doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER to me but I'm not sure about GNG either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regretfully as there seems to have been a lot of work put into this article by many editors. Although clearly a skilled pilot with a fine service record he doesn't seem to have received "significant coverage" in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has opined that "GNG trumps all other guidelines", which is not true. There is no policy which states that, and in fact the GNG guidelines themselves are only a (rebuttable) presumption of suitability as a stand-alone article. If an individual's only noteworthiness is as a soldier, I submit that they should meet WP:SOLDIER before qualifying as a stand-alone article. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that an essay trumps the General Notability Guideline (GNG) is just silly. Opine that! Notability essays are for people on the borderline of meeting the GNG but their professional standing pushes them over into inclusion. Anyone who meets the GNG is eligible for a standalone article no matter if their occupation is tinker, tailor, soldier, or spy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNG is a part of the WP:N guideline. It is subject to all the limitations of the policy WP:NOT, including NOT OBITUARY, NOT NEWS, and NOT TABLOID among others. It is also limited by the requirement for significant non-routine coverage, and that's the technical argument against those who think the GNG is the basis of WP. The relationship of the GNG to the variosu special guidelines and essays varies. Some of them provide additional areas for notability, some limit it. I consider the MilHis essay on notability an example of the ones that are widely accepted, and can serve both to extend or to limit it. Basically, this article is a human interest story about a not particularly distinguished military officer where the interest is the irony of surviving a very dangerous military career to be then killed in a routine highway accident. That makes a good newspaper story. It does not make a good encyclopedia article. The sources are minor or local or fail not obit. GNG is appropriate when used to justify something of encyclopedic interest, but should not be stretched to justify what is not. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SOLDIER is so full of shit, most notable soldiers/sailors/airmen meet WP:GNG before they meet WP:SOLDIER and are then held up to the latter standard rather than the former. Le petit fromage (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple references, including full biography on the Smithsonian website.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian Wall of Honor doesn't appear to be particularly exclusive or have any other requirement other than a "passion for flight". The size of the inscribed name depends on how much you donate to them, not their achievements.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Pennsylvania houses a biography of him in their archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The university has an Eighth Air Force archive, which as a whole may (or may not) be notable, but not necessarily each component of it. His biography shares a box with "American Red Cross & 8th USAAF Combat Rest Homes for Combat Fliers, March 1942-March 1945, undated" and "The Sky Was Never Still: Favorite Poems of the Eighth Air Force-draft copy, 1994". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biography runs for 51 pages, but will cost $10 a page to scan. I would say that if the University of Pennsylvania retains your biography, The Associated Press writes about your awards, , The Associated Press and United Press writes about your death, and writes about the lawsuit following your death, you are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I would (and do) say the biography is unpublished and written by who knows whom (maybe even the son), universities retain lots of not particularly notable stuff (as I have already shown), the accident reports are routine and not just about him, a notice of a wrongful death lawsuit by his widow signifies little, and the AP article was in 1944 and therefore likely World War II patriotic morale boosting. A search of newspapers.com brings up very little, other than the car accident and one mention of the lawsuit. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't supposed to engage in original research, or read minds: "likely World War II patriotic morale boosting" whatever reasons they noted him, they noted him, making him notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we are supposed to read the sources the article is based on and determine if they support a claim of notability, and are not simply the result of a one time event, like a death in a crash. And we aren't supposed to assume that because something of unknown content is in the repository of a library it therefore must support notability. We have to know the content itself to make that determination. BMK (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can already see that his Associated Press coverage began in 1943 and continued after his death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell there isn't a single source after 1955 in this article - so what 60 years? Some coverage at the time, none now. That really doesn't sound notable to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the coverage about Fladmark in the full range of sources provided demonstrate notability by any standard. Alansohn (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Alansohn.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL (which is policy) and WP:SOLDIER. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEM reads "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." which even the nominator says the article "may pass GNG". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SNUGGUMS, can you or can someone post links or scans of the many wartime stories that ran in the Argus Leader and Sioux Valley News, I assume that you must have read them before voting to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not withstanding, WP:MEMORIAL states " Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements". As other users have previously said, he doesn't meet the notability criteria listed at WP:SOLDIER, so I brought up WP:MEMORIAL. That's all I have to say. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't read those sources, how can you or any other editor assert that they fail to support notability?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" which it defines as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. " If an article only says that he received an award in a paragraph, it is sufficient to be "significant coverage". If it said he may or may not have received an award, then it would require original research to say that he did win an award. Combine that with his Associated Press and United Press coverage of his death and the lawsuit after his death, and the 51 page biography at the University of Pennsylvania, you have an article, and you have Wikipedia defined notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I think it's been fixed up enough to pass GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Looking at all the references, how many are actually about him? 6 and 15? And it's pretty hard to say what 6 is trying to assert, given its rather odd positioning in the article: "During World War II, Fladmark^[6]". 15 is just a routine announcement of a medal awarding. All the rest are about the accident or the lawsuit or other people. Where is the "significant coverage" demanded by GNG? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is defined as "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." What original research is needed to extract the content?

The use of "Oscar Fladmark's World War 1 draft registration" and "Mrs. Oscar (Pethryn) Fladmark (b. 1896) papers" does seem to be OR to me (footnotes 3 and 4). If he is notable this information should be able to be found easily in WP:RS, not in personal papers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2015 (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.