Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald V. Smith

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald V. Smith

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

(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). Sources are generally non reliable, passing mentions or generic Tuskegee Airmen filler. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here, just belonging to a notable unit/organisation does not confer notability on all its members, this is Easy Company all over again. Mztourist (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have had no difficulty improving this and other related articles. For example, the prominent physician Yvonnecris Veal was marked as an orphan but I have reunited her with her brothers. Our policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- All about his more notable brother and sister than about him. WP:NOTINHERITED Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. And part of a batch of copyvio stuff created by a now-blocked editor. I hope those doing improvements are checked every source provided in the original article. Intothat darkness 18:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, the sources do not give significant coverage to him, only his siblings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew, he basically covers it. (But as an aside; "generic Tuskegee Airmen filler"...? wt.?) - wolf 20:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"t." "generic Tuskegee Airmen filler" is the same stuff the page creator put in every Tuskegee Airman page e.g. "best known as the Tuskegee Airmen, "Red Tails," or “Schwartze Vogelmenschen” ("Black Birdmen") among enemy German pilots." and the use of CAF Rise above. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so he put information about t. Tuskegee Airmen into an article about a Tuskegee Airman, and that's bad thing? - wolf 16:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thewolfchild I'm sure you're familiar with production-line Users who want to create as many pages as possible, as was the case here. You need to look at how quickly he was producing pages before he was indeffed. Filler is a perfectly accurate description. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just look at the page and if I think it should stay, that's how I vote. I don't think I even look at the creator, certainly not their history. I'm not even sure this whole angle is even appropriate tbh. - wolf 04:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew, he basically covers it. Article is substantial and improved from the time when it was nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have consolidated the sources so that they can be more easily seen. The major source is CAF which is of dubious reliability apparently based on user submissions. Then there's Black Professional that Andrew added which is about his sister with two sentences "Two brothers were Tuskegee Airmen. Reginald V. Smith died in 1946 in a plane crash and brother Graham was listed as missing in action after he failed to return from his 98th mission in Korea." The Roanoke paper contains one sentence about him and his brother. Then we have Geni, a genealogy website which I assume is based on user submissions. Then the digital gems picture of his brother. Then another Geni ref about his daughter. Then there's the book that User:7&6=thirteen added, the pages cited can't be accessed online, so please tell us what it says, though I note that the book has only 223 pages, so I'm not sure what is on the non-existent pages 386, 512 and 514 that 7&6=thirteen cited. Then finally there's the North Carolina bill that just lists his and his brothers' names. Mztourist (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are there independent of siblings, the article could however use improvement, WP:AQU. It is irrelevant that the author is banned, the article needs to stand on its own merit, which it does. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article asserts the subject's non-notability: he died immediately after graduating. Most of the sources are unreliable (CAF), self-published (geni), or don't deal with the man himself in any meaningful way. The book that 7&6=thirteen added apparently mentions the subject not a single time, and 7&6=thirteen also seems to have made up a bunch of page numbers to make his claim seem authentic (he here claims the article has been substantially improved since the nom, which is false). There's that North Carolina decree, but the subject is simply one of many named in it, and the reference is to a non-independent primary source. On the so-called "further reading" section, there's nothing to be further read: the subject gets no more than passing mentions, and in listings mostly. In short, there are no adequate sources, there's nothing encyclopedic here, and this article should've been speedily deleted immediately after its creator was banned. Avilich (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avilich. There's not much in terms of actual reliable sourcing that aren't brief mentions or a local writeup of the subject's funeral. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided don't go into enough detail to provide notability and several are unreliable. Suonii180 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Mztourist's analysis of the source has convinced me that there isn't sufficient coverage to meet GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2021 (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.