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 keep. I debated calling this "no consensus" due to the number of users arguing for deletion, but the article has seen significant improvement since the nomination and no one has argued for deletion since the bulk of the sources were added. In either case, the outcome is the same. —  The Earwig  ^talk 06:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Duanes S. (Pappy) Larson

Duanes S. (Pappy) Larson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler ^{hello • contribs} 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler ^{hello • contribs} 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler ^{hello • contribs} 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler ^{hello • contribs} 13:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to 178th Reconnaissance Squadron to explain the Happy Hooligans nickname. He isn't separately notable. Mztourist ( talk) 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge and redirect to 178th Reconnaissance Squadron. Worthy of mention there (not currently done, hence merge) as the unit's namesake and thus a plausible redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete it is high time that we started applying verifiability guidelines and deleted all unsourced content. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • ...@ Johnpacklambert:, you're doing it again. The verifiability policy (it's not a mere guideline) only requires that sources exist. This means a reliable published source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. It does not require that sources be in the article. Only BLPs require that. Please be more careful about the claims you make in your !votes at AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • this is a rubbish policy and you know it. Verrifiability should require that the sources be in the article. We need to end this hand waving to claim otherwise. The sourcing here is clearly not enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't, but it doesn't, and to claim otherwise is not compliant with policy. I happen to agree with you that the relevant policies and guidelines are not met here, but please be more careful in the future about these claims because this is by far not the first time I've seen this sort of !vote from you. !Vote policy, not how you think things should be, even if those produce the same result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
        • The Bushranger, Mr. Lambert is correct here. Per WP:V, "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source", and "the burden to demonstrate verifiability (...) is satisfied by providing an inline citation". This does mean that sources must be cited in the article, not merely exist. The text you cite is where WP:V summarizes another policy, WP:NOR. Sandstein 20:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Then WP:V explicitly contradicts itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete; unverifiable as discussed above. Redirection is pointless as long as Larson is unverifiable and not mentioned in the target article. Sandstein 20:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Larson became a brigadier general in the North Dakota Air National Guard postwar thus meeting WP:SOLDIER #2 and was inducted into the North Dakota Aviation Hall of Fame. Should be moved to Duane S. Larson to remove typo from the article title. Kges1901 ( talk) 18:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a general officer per WP:SOLDIER #2. Article needs renaming though. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep, per the sources, that clearly verify the guy existed, which have been added since nomination. He was a brigadier general, the article is well-written, and the man's been dead for fifteen years (in fact, he died two years before the article was started). Can't he rest in peace? jp× g 16:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets NSOLDIER as he held the rank of Brigadier General, equivalent to Air Commodore, explicitly stated in the Air Officer article, which is explicitly stated in NSOLDIER. WP:V is met on several fronts, as is WP:GNG, satisfying WP:N. With WP:V met, and WP:N met, Wikipedia is clearly improved if we have an article on this topic. AfD is not cleanup, but I am going through the sources, and will remove any material failing WP:V. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

P.S. Article indeed needs to be renamed, getting rid of the nickname and correcting his first name, but so as to avoid confusion by bots and humans, will not do so until this AfD is closed. 78.26 _{( spin me / revolutions)} 19:28, 20 January 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.