Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Nalls

Art Nalls[edit]

Art Nalls (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)

Promotional and not notable. The overdetailed career is inappropriate, the Award is not considered notable, the refs are mostly mentions. DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. I thought Nalls was notable per WP:GNP for his contributions to the air show profession restoring and flying unique aircraft that fans might otherwise not get to enjoy. That was not specifically mentioned in the lead so I added it. The article provided references from multiple, independent, reliable sources discussing his work and contributions. The sources demonstrate that people independent of Nalls considered him notable. I tried to follow WP:SPIP to write a fair and balanced article focusing on Nalls' contributions rather than promoting him. Is the "over-detailed career" the issue here? I tried to select events from his career that showed his enthusiasm for the Harrier and the "do not quit" mentality that helped him accomplish the restoration of the aircraft, but I can eliminate some of it. I agree that the Air Medal itself is not a particularly notable award, but in Nalls' case it was awarded for a landing that had never been accomplished before in the Harrier, so I thought it was relevant here. If you still feel the Air Medal reference detracts from the article, I can remove it. Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although many of the sources used do just contain passing mentions, it appears to me that there is sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, including the Washington Post, Popular Mechanics and the Flight International website Flightglobal. In my opinion these sources satisfy the requirements of the general notability guidelines. Yes the article could do with some work, but that is not a reason for deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YSSYguy. Are your issues with the article the same as DGG's—too much career detail and non-notable medal? I included the medal because it was associated with a first-of-a-kind dead stick Harrier landing; not to establish notability of the subject. Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above, but may require adjustment to avoid WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs)

Hi Pete. I tried to keep to WP:NPOV. Would you please let me know what areas you feel need to be addressed? Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC) I added an "according to ..." that I missed regarding the claim that the two-seat Harrier is the only civilian type of its kind. Skeet Shooter (talk)[reply]

Just general tone and writing style, nothing major--Petebutt (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there does appear to be sufficient coverage in RS to write a complete biography (no major details missing that I could see) so it meets WP:GNG (in my opinion anyway). Anotherclown (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep searches appear to show enough depth and breadth of coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The concerns above do need to be addressed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I trimmed the career detail as suggested and left the details that support Nalls' experience with the Harrier since that is related to his notability in the airshow business. Do the edits address the over-detailed career concern? I still don't see anything wrong with the mention of the Air Medal since it was related to his Harrier flying experience and not to establish notability. Is the medal still an issue? I would appreciate suggestions on which parts of the article are too promotional so I can correct them. Thanks, Skeet Shooter (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2015 (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.