Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gifford Stower

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Gifford Stower

John Gifford Stower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

After a discussion of notability on Talk:John Gifford Stower, I am sadly still convinced the subject is not notable. A participant of a notable event and included on List of Allied airmen from the Great Escape, as notability is not inherited he still needs to pass WP:BIO, and he does not. There is no in-depth coverage except few sentences which more or less make the current article as long as it will ever be, and he also does not seem to be notable from the military angle (no decorations, insufficient rank). "He was one of the 76 men who took part in the "Great Escape"", but that is not enough to be in an encyclopedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Article creator. I set out my arguments for retention in Talk:John Gifford Stower, and doubt I will have anything to add. I agree that Stower does not appear to be notable for anything other than his part in the Great Escape. Narky Blert (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a new citation I found by accident - from the Ottawa Journal of 20 May 1944. Narky Blert (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep according to the talk page discussion 41 of the victims of the Great Escape have articles on wikipedia. The book sources listed on the article are RS and probably enough for this article to be retained as a well written stub, there is nothing wrong with well written stubs and the most experienced editors often create them. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited, if 41 other escapees are notable, so be it. This one has to be considered based on his own merits, or rather, those of the sources, none of which has been shown to have more then 2-3 sentences on the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best - Still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a classic WP:BIO1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BIO1E. EricSerge (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2016 (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.