Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas M. Webster
=[[Douglas M. Webster]]=
:{{la|Douglas M. Webster}} – (
:({{findsources|Douglas M. Webster}})
Douglas Webster might be known for one event. The incident that resulted in his death appears to be notable but he does not appear to be notable. I can find no reliable sources that discuss him. The sources currently in the article discuss the incident. I do not have access to the books but based on the titles and from reading similar books, he might be mentioned in passing as the pilot only. It is very unlikely they discuss him in depth. The www.atomicarchive.com reference doesn't even mention his name. The only reference that probably covers him is the A4skyhawk.org site. That does not appear to be a reliable source. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 12:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete- Non-notable ,there is no reason for it to have an article. --Rirunmot 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep information As a Broken Arrow (lost nuclear weapon) this incident is very notable. The information should not be removed from wikipedia, but at the very least needs to be incorporated into USS Ticonderoga and Broken Arrow, and possibly United States Seventh Fleet. The article is at the wrong title however, as it focused completely on the incident with only a mere mention of the scholarship fund which is actually about the pilot. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Buckshot: the incident seems notable enough, if not the individual. Perhaps we can rename this? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Information is certainly notable, if not for the person, but for the incident. Background information on the pilot would be useful as well, but not entirely necessary. Let's keep in mind the potential of articles, not necessarily their present state. — BQZip01 — talk 22:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep and recast: The incident is worth covering in depth. It gets a mention in United States military nuclear incident terminology#Events where few would look for it. I'd retitle / recast the article to be about the incident, with the biography and fund being a section within. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Merge (effectively, delete article on D.M. Webster), but Keep the important and well-sourced information about the incident. Per WP:ONEEVENT, the is insufficient notability demonstrated for this article on the person. N2e (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2010 (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.