Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman L. Paxton

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 delete. There is a clear consensus that, based on the currently available sources, the subject is not notable. However, per Kges1901's request I've userfied the page to User:Kges1901/Norman L. Paxton, to give him the chance to wait for his interlibrary loans. – Joe (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norman L. Paxton

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

Aside from WP:NOTMEMORIAL, per sources the highest rank held seems to be Lieutenant, which doesn't qualify under WP:NSOLDIER, and the highest award appears to have been the Navy Cross, which only qualifies under NSOLDIER if it is awarded multiple times. Their documented participation seems to be isolated to a single attack in 1944, which doesn't itself seem to have been part of a larger notable battle. Most/all coverage seems to be obits or directly related to the Navy Cross citation, and so the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. GMG ^talk 13:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is incorrect. Norman Paxton's highest rank is Captain and awards are Navy Cross and Distinguished Flying Cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forevaclevah (talk • contribs) 14:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SOLDIER fail on wartime awards and much later peacetime rank. Sources in article do not satisfy GNG (possibly V problems on some post war details sources to his obit). BEFORE does not bringup much.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He did make captain (navy) but that still doesn't qualify him under WP:SOLDIER; his obit mentions him working at TWA but with no details.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG because there is SIGCOV in Knott and DANAS as one of the prominent pilots of his squadron. Not covered by WP:NOTMEMORIAL because he has other notable events other than death as seen from above sources. Kges1901 (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Well Knott isn't available online, and there's not really any clue as to what that coverage is, because it doesn't seem to actually be used to support any of the content in the article. Even so, the blurb from the book itself pretty much comes right out and says it was at least the only source available at the time covering the unit. At the same time, it seems to be about the unit, and not about the individual, so it's not clear how much of the content can be expected to be about the subject.

The DANAS source is just a restatement of the Navy Cross citation, and in some ways is actually less detailed. I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong, but I'm just not sure this rises to the level of GNG. GMG ^talk 03:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the snippet view of Knott on Google Books Preview, there are three pages that mention him, potentially scope for at least a paragraph. I thought that my local library had the book, but it turned out that they'd withdrawn it a few months ago, so I put in an interlibrary loan request for it; it should arrive in about a month. When it arrives I plan to expand the article based on the contents in the book. I mentioned DANAS because it isn't a primary source. Kges1901 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like userfying is probably a good middle ground here. I'm still not totally convinced it can stand on it's own two feet in mainspace, but I've got no problem giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong if you're motivated enough to start throwing down inter library loans. GMG ^talk 18:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with userfying for this. Kges1901 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - searching newspapers.com, I don't find much significant not already in the article. Paxton was a leader in a local funeral society and was occasionally mentioned in that capacity. I am skeptical what might be available on Knott and am indifferent between delete and userfy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think he did enough to cross the threshold of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:SOLDIER and coverage is in passing and routine. There's only one incoming link which confirms that the subject has not accomplished anything worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia. Which makes it pretty much a memorial page. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paxton deserves our admiration, and he has mine. He fought in a noble cause and lived a worthy life. However, sorucing fails WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with E.M.Gregory that he deserves our respect, but I do not think he passes WP:GNG, and he just misses passing WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 30 November 2017 (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.