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 no consensus. Wikipedia follows sources. If sources exist to demonstrate notability then they are notable. NOTMEMORIAL does not mean that post-death coverage cannot be used to establish notability. However, there is no consensus among participating editors here after extensive discussion about whether the coverage does indeed establish notability or whether some alternative to deletion is appropriate here. Would suggest this sit before any possible renomination. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Al Haynes

Al Haynes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Some of this article is just restating info from the article on flight 232. Other parts are just saying that he’s from the navy and that he's a hero. This article should be deleted, just add the part that he’s former navy on the UA 232 page CZ3699 ( talk) 18:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CZ3699 ( talk) 18:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 20:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to United Airlines Flight 232. His notability is inherently tied to that flight. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as a BLP1E, nothing in the article indicates he was of note outside of UA232. MilborneOne ( talk) 06:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United Airlines Flight 232. Honestly that article covers him better than this one does. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 08:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: What distinguishes Haynes from Chesley Sullenberger, who I think almost all would agree is notable enough for a stand-alone article? There are many reliable sources in the article already, and there is a slew of articles on newspapers.com about him; obviously it's mostly tied to UA232 (and his public speaking afterwards), but enough for an interested editor to write an article about him. Had the crash occurred when Wikipedia was around, I suspect notability would be less of an issue. -- Usernameunique ( talk) 03:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I wrote the article about Tammie Jo Shults. There was an over-zealous attempt to delete her but the result was a Keep. There was an AfD for Chesley Sullenberger too, with a similar result. The nomination in this case is of poor quality because it is implicitly suggesting merger and that's not done by deletion. WP:BLP1E is likewise not an argument for deletion because that's intended to cover minor participants in an event -- people like the passengers. But the subject in this case was the captain and is the subject of specific coverage as the article contains 8 sources whose title includes the name of the subject, such as "Remembering Al Haynes, the pilot who...". And, of course, the subject is dead and so talk of BLP is nonsense. There's plenty more coverage to find such as The Human Contribution, Pilots, Personality, and Performance and How Expert Pilots Think in which the subject is discussed in detail as an exemplar. The subject got an obituary in the NYT which is excellent evidence of notability per WP:SIGCOV and so passes WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉( talk) 20:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

The two pilots that you mentioned were kept because of the fact that notability already existed with them, such of the fact that the pilot of SW 1380 was one of the first female fighter pilots. No notability exists here besides the crash of UA 232, which is already covered in United Airlines Flight 232. Also my nomination doesn’t apply merging, just adding one little detail. CZ3699 ( talk) 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Isn't the "Smithsonian Wall of Honor" a notable award? Also I click Google news search and a lot of major media publications are mentioning him such as CNN: Former United Airlines pilot Al Haynes, who saved 184 lives during 1989 Iowa crash landing, has died [1]. That has a lot of information about him, not just a brief passing mention. They don't write that much about just anyone. Dream Focus 20:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC) reply

All I really see on that article is the timeline of UA232, the fact that he died, and that he never saw himself as a hero. It also only talks about good things, a sign of potential bias. CZ3699 ( talk) 02:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

"It only talks about the good things". You are saying there are bad things left out? What are they? Sometimes there are no bad things, notable enough. -- Green C 03:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I should mention that this article was originally created in 2006. A VFD was done, which saw the redirect to United Airlines Flight 232. It was only when he died that this article came back. If Haynes was still alive, it wouldn’t be as notable. CZ3699 ( talk) 02:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

That's OK some people become (more) notable after death. -- Green C 03:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• It was created in 2004. There was a VfD then (the process before AfD) but it wasn't done properly as it wasn't added to the list. The article was then revived last year when the subject died and there was a flurry of obituaries. Editorial obituaries in journals of records such as the New York Times or Daily Telegraph are high quality sources because they include a full account of the subject's life with the biographical details such as place and date of birth that we want in a biography. They also confirm that the subject is dead and so BLP is no longer an issue. The sources are significant coverage and so the subject passes the notability guideline. The job of editors now is to use these many sources to expand and complete the article per our editing policy. We might reasonably expect an article of GA quality which we can feature at DYK. I would go with the following hook:

• Did you know that ... in simulator studies, other pilots were unable to repeat Al Haynes' feat of flying and landing his crippled DC10 using only two engine throttles?

Andrew🐉( talk) 08:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep WP:ANYBIO Wall of honor at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. In addition his involvement as the Captain during the incident: United Airlines Flight 232 is WP:LASTING Lightburst ( talk) 22:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I don't see anything patently problematic with the article, although it could be fleshed out a bit. The subject is arguably one of the most well-known airline captains of all time, known for his airmanship, and he would be one of a small number of pilots who has attempted to land an aircraft using differential thrust. There doesn't seem to be an issue with sourcing, so deletion seems unnecessary. Dflaw4 ( talk) 08:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep CZ3699 I know there are individuals who routinely nominate article for deletion defiantly giving a Foxtrot Oscar to the rest of us, by adamantly refusing to comply with WP:BEFORE. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, please, please, don't follow their terrible example.

  As to your argument that information about him is better covered in the article about the crash... Sorry, I think this assertion shows you are confined to an old-fashioned pre-digital mindset. In pre-digital times all documents were confined to paper. They could not branch. There was no convenient mechanism to link one document to another.

  Here, on the wikipedia, documents can branch. We can give our readers choices, as to how to transit a web of human knowledge. And that works best when we keep each article restricted to a single topic, keep article relatively small, but make sure they are richly linked to other articles.

  Our nominator does not understand how it is the wikilink that makes the wikipedia powerful.

  No offense CZ3699, but your nomination illustrates both hubris and a terrible failure of imagination. You assume that the only reason a reader would come to the wikipedia, to read about Haynes, would be they wanted to learn about the crash. Haynes was born in Texas. What about the school-kid told to write a paper on heroes born in Texas? For them the details of the crash could be completely irrelevant. A kid at a military academy might be told to write a paper on former military types who were recognized for heroism after they retired from the military. What about the reader who was interested in his career as an umpire?

  If Haynes really is better covered in the article on the crash than in his own article that is a sign his article should be improved, not deleted. Maybe some of the information in the crash article should be moved into the Haynes article. In general, redundant duplication of information, across multiple articles, should be avoided - except for providing context to the reader, so they have a good idea where a wiki-link will take them. In general the main details about a topic should be in a single article, with other information about that topic merely being a summary in the text that surrounds wikilinks to that topic. Geo Swan ( talk) 12:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Comments: According to the current direction of this discussion GreenC might be absolutely correct ("That's OK some people become (more) notable after death"), even if the rationale may be directly against policy. The policy concerning this reads: Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. This is policy as to why we should consider not having a stand alone article on a subject that was not considered notable enough before they died. The death of the subject (See: WP:Notability (events)) apparently resulted in the removal of the redirect and a flurry of edits that are common with breaking news that may result in Wikipedia:Recentism. The article had been under a redirect from what seems to be 2006. When the redirect was removed (August 26, 2019)‎ the edit summary stated "(died)".

Looking at a recently created or restored article, possibly to determine if it is a fork or WP:SPINOFF, should be considered good editing.

Here is some information that might be at odds with some comments above:

• 1)- That "he never saw himself as a hero" is not a factor per low-profile individuals,
• 2)- that the subject "died" does not advance notability,
• 3)- A merge consensus ("merger and that's not done by deletion") can absolutely be determined at WP:AFD; "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.". An article should not be brought to AFD for consideration of merging. That should be done on the article talk page and a "merge" discussion. However, it is still an option at AFD,
• 4)- The article can possibly be covered by WP:BLP1E. WP:BDP states: The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. WP:BLP1E states, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of "low-profile individuals".
• 5)- The mentioned "Wall of Honor" does not have an article and the notability of being bestowed this award is certainly questionable. A determining factor for inclusion on the wall indicates the criteria for getting the "honor" is only limited to the size of the writing, according to the amount of the donation given. I would hold more stock in the Dr. Earl Wiener "Lifetime Achievement Award", that has only been presented to three people since 2001.

  I have to try and determine if there was enough notability for a stand alone article, before the subject died, and if future improvements can result in more than a pseudo-biography. As it stands now 7 references are about the death and 1 about the wall (total= .6666%) which does indicate the restoration as a memorial like the edit summary shows. Otr500 ( talk) 23:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: Notification of this discussion provided at Talk:United Airlines Flight 232 --- Otr500 ( talk) 23:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The memorial policy says if they are notable it's not a memorial. We are trying to determine if they are notable. Beyond that, there is no hard definition of what memorial means except "deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances" which is not the case here. You infer it is a memorial because they are "not considered notable enough before they died" but the policy says no such thing. You are welcome to believe that, it is your opinion of what memorial means, but not policy. -- Green C 23:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment to closing admin and everyone using the "Smithsonian Wall of Honor" as a reason to keep because it supposedly is an indication of notability: there are more than 31,000 people on that Wall of Honor, so not really selective. More importantly, the Wall of Honor is purely and simply based on donations, anyone can get their name on it: and the biographies are provided by the one paying, not by the Smithsonian either. So this so-called "Wall of Honor" is purely a list of people who have donated to the Smithsonian, with biographies provided by themselves, and there is absolutely zero notability in being included in this list. Please ignore all comments made which are based on the supposed notability of inclusion in this wall. Fram ( talk) 08:00, 10 April 2020 (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.