Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Emilius Fauquier
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 Keep --JForget 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] John Emilius Fauquier
Non-notable fighting man in WWII. There were millions of them, and this one, like the overwhelming majority, is non-notable. In terms of his medals, we have to recognize that many, many other people received identical medals. And, contrary to what the article states, he was not one of the founders of Canadian aviation. Qworty (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Although I will have to believe you on the latter as there are no references I can easily check. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It would be interesting to see page numbers on that cite (shouldn't the author's talk page have an AfD notice?). It would also be interesting to see how many people are in the "Canadian Aviation Hall of Fame". Here is the link. Seems like there probably aren't more than 200 members (that's just a guessimate from the first few pages, YMMV). I'm not sure how 'notable' induction into this organization is, but if it is notable, then there isn't really a reason to drop this article. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ok. Article is tagged, categorized and flagged for rescue. Now I'm off to list this AfD some more places. Hopefully we can find someone who knows more about this. Protonk (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protonk (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Some sources: Canada's Historical Encylopedia. the hall of fame mention. Some high praise, though not sure how verifiable. the book mentioned and quoted in the above source. And that's about all she wrote. Something to chew on, if anyone owns "Above and Beyond". Protonk (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Special:Contributions/Cahf (Canadian Air Hall of Fame?) Seems to be building these sorts of bios. I'm not sure if the name violates the naming convention. It's also ok for them to make them (and I don't think it detracts from the notability of the subject in this case, assuming the quoted material is true), but it makes it a little troublesome. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep, needs better sourcing. I'm ready to accept this on the basis of some of the links provided (e.g. "possibly Canada's greatest bomber pilot"), but we do need WP:V to be satisfied. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Update Ok. I've changed a good deal of text, including some that could be construed as plagiarizing a source. I've added some specific, inline citiations for claims made. The ordering has been slightly improved. I would still like anyone who can find a copy of "Oswald, Mary, They Led the Way, Wetaskiwin: Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame" to see what she has to say about this guy, as the only printed source I have is the one history of canadian pilots in WWII. In my eyes, this article meets the guidelines to be kept in wikipedia now. He's mentioned in another encyclopedia. He's listed by a historian as "the best bomber pilot from canada" and he's a member of the canadian air hall of fame (I don't know how strict their membership rules are, but they can't be that loose as there aren't too many people inducted and canada sent a non-trivial amount of people to war). It's good to go. Protonk (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Good references which establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I didn't see this before Protonk went to work on it, but at this point the subject's notability is clearly asserted (as "Canada's greatest bomber pilot"), and the refs I checked were rock-solid, so WP:V is satisfied. I have no doubt this was a good-faith nomination, but it no longer qualifies for deletion. Doc Tropics 07:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Like Doc Tropics, I didn't see this article before the recent work. However the suggestion above that "many, many others" received the same medals is ludicrous. Three DSOs is highly unusual (his predecessor at 617 Squadron, Tait, is the only ever RAF recipient of four). While the article needs more work, notability is undeniable and the added references have made it of respectable, although not outstanding, quality. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A lot more research has gone into the article than the nomination. As Stephen points out, the assertion that 'many many' men won the DSO three times is absurd. Fauquier led 617 Squadron from 1944 which would be notable in itself. If Fauquier isn't notable then it's Wikipedia's rules which are at fault. Nick mallory (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If a standard history says "considered... Canada's greatest bomber pilot" , then he's notable. Even the original version had "Canada’s_Aviation_Hall_of_Fame" , and that's a good case for notability. .
- 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.
