Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Gustafson

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. Tag for cleanup, verify. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerald Gustafson

Gerald Gustafson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject of this article, Gerald Gustafson, won the Air Force Cross. However, a Google search of "Gerald Gustafson" and "Air Force Cross"[1] does not return any third-party sources (only Wikipedia mirrors), which means this page is not verifiable. The lack of websites would also seem to be an indicator of a lack of notability. The author of the page claims to be Gustafson's grandson, which is where the information comes from. Therefore, I feel it should be deleted.

This article was previously speedily deleted per WP:A7, but is currently undergoing a deletion review. Another user has jumped ahead of the DRV result, and has recreated the article, so I've decided to just nominate it for deletion to hopefully settle this debate. Tom (talk - email) 17:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The debate at the DRV was running at 8 editors wanting to overturn your deletion, one editor wanting to endorse it (you) and one other who would keep it if it was given more sources. The article now has two independent sources. By the way, it is usually thought polite to inform an editor when you seek to delete an article he started. Nick mallory (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Air force cross winners are almost certain to be notable, and the lack of coverage on the internet is not a good indication of lack of notability or verifiability given that he won the award in 1967 - it's to be expected that someone like this will be better coverd in offline sources. Having said that, I'd be happier if someone could find a reference or two to a reliable source. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 17:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • An honorable award, yes, but is it automatically notable? Should every person who has won the Air Force Cross have an article? Medals are subjective awards, and if no third parties have discussed him on the internet yet, then that is certainly a very strong indicator of whether someone has secured a place in the history books. --Tom (talk - email) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • This is what the wikipedia policy says. "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards....The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." Are you claiming the second highest award for gallantry in the USAF isn't a significant award? Perhaps you are, in the DRV you wrote "There isn't any mention of why he is notable, just that he won the Air Force Cross. Why is this important?" Nick mallory (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd love it if every person who has won an Air Force Cross had an article - wouldn't it be great to have comprehensive coverage of a group of people with such fascinating stories to tell? Whether it's practical given notability and verifiability guidelines I don't know, but I would think so - and certainly hope so. There'll have been plenty of coverage at the time - and notability is not temporary. Nor is it determined by what's already been written on the internet. There are still big holes in the internet's coverage of many areas, one of which is minor historical figures. With the exception of contemporary journalism, the vast majority of serious, high quality, professional writing is still either offline, or else hidden behind paywalls and thus invisible to Google, so unless we want an encyclopedia devoted mainly to Star Wars, World of Warcraft and news stories from the last ten years, we shouldn't be relying on Google as our main arbiter of notability. And Wikipedia is at it's best when it covers subjects which aren't well covered elsewhere on the internet; if I want to know about The Simpsons, Wikipedia is entirely redundant to this site, but if I want to know about the Brown Dog affair, it may well be the best free source of information available. In any event, it's not true to say that there's no third party information about him at all on the internet, here is confirmation of the citation of his award, so that part of the article at least is verifiable. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not argue the fact that the internet (including Wikipedia and Google) has a bias towards recent events. However, the argument that we "could" find a wealth of published information about someone isn't a reason to keep an article that otherwise seems obscure. --Tom (talk - email) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. MOH recipients have been deleted on the same basis. Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners. --Dhartung | Talk 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Seriously? Medal of Honor winners have been deleted? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is an article on an individual not a directory. There is no policy which says 'Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners' either and it's perhaps not sporting to imply that there is with a blue link set up to misrepresent its contents (WP:NOT#DIR|Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners). The directory policy Dhartung links to doesn't mention medal winners at all, it says there shouldn't be "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", "Genealogical entries or phonebook entries", a "Sales catalog" or a repository for "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" - none of those things have any relevance to this article or indeed any article about the winner of a major millitary medal. Nick mallory (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He won the Air Force Cross, the second highest award for gallantry in the U.S. Air Force. I find it literally incredible that anyone should think winners of this award are not notable. Wikipedia guidelines on notability clearly state that people who've been given major awards are notable. Tom's argument that medal awards of this kind are 'subjective' is ludicrous, is he suggesting that some winners of the Victoria Cross or George Cross didn't deserve them either? The idea that because something which happened 40 years ago doesn't have many google hits it should be disregarded is also facile as Iain points out. Failing to find someone on google and using that as proof that he's not mentioned in any history books makes no sense either. The citation is given in full in the article in any case. He complains both when someone possibly related to Gustafson writes an article, and also when someone not in anyway related to him (e.g. me) "jumps in' and writes one too. I find this nomination bizarre in both its reasoning and intent. What is 'obscure' about someone who won a major medal in the Vietnam War? Nick mallory (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Medals are subjective, since an act of heroism to one person may be seen as exactly the opposite to another, depending on their frame of reference. To suggest otherwise is incorrect (however, I never said he didn't deserve the medal, so please do not put words in my mouth). A person is defined by their actions, not a piece of metal with ribbon. So, do his actions of "not leaving a man behind" (if I interpreted things correctly) warrant his own article, or is it because he has a medal? Additionally, the original author has explicitly stated that he is his grandson, which I have no reason to doubt. If anything, this gives more cause to delete the article since there is a bias.
    Also, please try to keep your comments together and limit dissecting each point made above, as it disrupts continuity. --Tom (talk - email) 00:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Medals are subjective? That's an absurd statement. They're awarded by a state in recognition of heroism or other service and this is a very high ranking medal. It's not up to you, or anyone else, to second guess if the act or acts which merited them seem worthy to you. The very fact that he received a medal of this rank automatically makes the recipient notable by Wikipedia standards as has been pointed out to you. If you check the history of this article you'll see that I started it this time around, rather than the man's grandson, but this is a red herring too, there's no bias involved in making simple statements of fact. Yes a person is defined by their actions, but it's those actions which, in this case, won the medal. I have to say I find this a ridiculous discussion. Nick mallory (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Like you did here? I'll discuss this article how I choose, thanks. It would help you answered the substantive points made against this deletion request, rather than criticise the form in which they appear. Your nomination says the article should be deleted because it isn't sourced. It now is sourced, from two independent sources. In addition you admit that the article in its current incarnation wasn't started by anyone related to Gustafson, so as your grounds for deletion have been shown to be false. Instead of admitting that your proposal is groundless you are now attempting to argue that somehow medal winners have to pass some nebulous test which only you are proposing, although you offer no clue to what the parameters of that test might be. Whatever this ad hoc test might be you admit that he passes it "I never said he didn't deserve the medal" so why are you still arguing about this man's inclusion? Nick mallory (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Before I answer, please do not split up other people's comments (as you did to mine above, which I am recombining) as a matter of courtesy. In addition, the reason I asked you to keep your comments together is that it is difficult for me to reply to your claims if they are scattered. I am also going to ask you politely to calm down and refrain from calling my arguments absurd. I merely disagree with you, and I have not attacked your ideas in any way. Please offer the same level of respect to me that I am affording to you, and understand that we all have different points of view.
        Now that that is out of the way, let me answer your questions. Medals are subjective because someone has to decide whether or not an act was heroic or meets the qualifications for the medal. The Air Force Cross is not a marksmanship medal, for example, where there is a specific number of targets that have to be hit for the citation to be made. Instead, it is a qualitative assessment made by a commanding officer (or other executive/committee, depending on the medal). Others may not construe the act as heroic, or may argue that the medal was awarded more for political reasons rather than practical (for example). I am not saying that is the case here necessarily, rather I am simply pointing out the fact that a medal does not automatically mean someone should have an article. Their accomplishments should be defined by their achievements, not by their medal, which I have stated above.
        Also, understand that this AFD is not because I have a personal vendetta against this man (or you, or his grandson, or anyone else), but because I question whether or not he should be part of this particular encyclopedia. Also, do not confuse my respect for his award (which I do respect) with whether or not I feel he should have an article or not. A lot of people have performed heroic acts which will never be on Wikipedia. Why? Because at some point, whether we like it or not, a line has to be drawn.
        However, even though I am not convinced there should be an article, I will still be happy if the opening of this AFD resulted in a workable, well-cited article, as well as some healthy discussion concerning who should have an article or not. Let us keep that in mind. --Tom (talk - email) 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, I apologize for not informing you directly of the AFD. I was under the impression that you were creating the article because you saw it on the DRV (where I gave notice). Bad timing, but assume good faith in that it was an unintended slight. --Tom (talk - email) 04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• I am the one who submitted the article. Here is my source. Hope this helps...
  http://www.homeofheros.com/valor/0_AFC/afcross_detail_chron.html
  http://www.vietnamunitmemorialdisplay.org/new_page_9.htm
  I believe these are sites for people to check for phonies. Hope these helps. Sdsbassist (talk)Sdsbassist
• Keep. The Air Force Cross is probably notable enough, and www.homeofheros.com is cited in a lot of the MOH articles I've edited. I'm having trouble following Tom's reasoning. How are medals subjective? He was either awarded the cross or he wasn't. Whether someone actually deserved a medal is an entirely different issue, and certainly beyond the scope of an Afd. I also see no COI issues. The article just presents the facts. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Addendum. There's a Category:Recipients of US Air Force Cross, so evidently the award confers notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Categories are not indicators of notability, but rather descriptive taxonomies. Because Category:United States Army soldiers exists doesn't mean every soldier should have an article, nor should all of the Category:American physicians, for example. --Tom (talk - email) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the MOH is 100% notable and the cross is just one step down from it, so I'm inclined to say that it is as well. Anything less prestigious would cross the line IMO, but this is a marginal keep to me, especially now that it is sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is well established that a lack of google hits does not imply a lack of notability, nor does it imply a lack of verifiability. DuncanHill (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As I understand it Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history recommends that only the highest award in a country's system of decorations confers "automatic" notability (i.e. MoH, VC/GC etc). I will add this AFD to the project talk page to get some more input. David Underdown (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikiprojects don't set policy though. Wikipedia's notability rules for individuals say that people who've won "significant recognized awards or honors" are generally held to be automatically notable. I fail to see how the Air Force Cross, or similar, isn't such an award. Nick mallory (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • No but what they are saying is that only the top-level awards count as being sufficiently highly recognized for the purpose of that part of the notability guideline (NB in itself WP:NOTABILITY is only a guideline, not a policy). David Underdown (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article makes no assertion of notability beyond the award, which does not appear to bear inherent notability.ALR (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are less than 200 total recipients of this award. Considering how many airmen served in the Vietnam War (including close to 30,000 combat pilots) that only 179 (180, one upgraded) received this award would appear notable enough. —PētersV (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per ALR. I worry how many more 'notable persons' we would have if we included the second highest awards for various things in each branch of each country. Especially as then you'd have to work out what was the second highest at the time of the award and such. A respectable award, and the award itself is notable, but I don't think in this case the person is. Narson (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Even more notable is that he is one of the few living winners. This can be important for Veterans Group's and Educational Organizations that need to verify Gustafson's record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdsbassist (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If they need to verify it, they should likely contact the US DoD rather than use a website anyone can edit. Wikipedia is a quick stop for information, not a tool anyone should use to do their job. Narson (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - by the ordinary meaning of the word "notable" this man's achievements are surely notable. LeContexte (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Expand heavily. If this is kept, I hope it is, it should be given an infobox, and extremely expanded. <DREAMAFTER> ^<TALK> 03:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, the inference being that it's not up to standard at the moment?
    There has now been nearly a week to correct the issues with notability being cited, and no effort has been made to do that.
    ALR (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctantly, delete for a lack of the sources needed to ever expand the article past this sub-stub listing. Winning a prestigious medal is certainly a claim of notability but that alone is not sufficient to support an encyclopedia article. I will reconsider if anything can be found that would reliably expand the page past the mere copying of his citation. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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.