Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Bertram MacDonald

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Bertram MacDonald

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Douglas Bertram MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Previously subject of a Speedy Delete but author insists on recreating it. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this article was not created in a timely and complete way according to your rules. It is expected to be enhanced by others who knew Douglas of whom only a few are still living. It is not intended as a memorial but as actual human history of a real human being. Wp20151110 (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict notability guidelines. Please read through WP:GNG and WP:BIO - does the subject of your article meet these criteria? If so, how? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added link to meet your verifiable criteria. Wp20151110 (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's criteria (not mine) for sourcing and notability, links to which have been provided, require significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. A memorial site (containing listings of over 100,000 people) is not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added additional link (#3) for verification Wp20151110 (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you haven't understood the guidelines pointed out to you at WP:GNG and WP:BIO. What is needed are, for example, newspaper articles that are significantly or wholly about MacDonald - not merely passing mentions or lists that happen to include his name. Medal citations serve as proof that he existed, which isn't in doubt, but they do not reach the threshold set by WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Military Medal is not sufficient for notability. I'm also a little puzzled as to the posthumous claim, as the MM was not awarded posthumously until 1982 and MacDonald's citation in the London Gazette does not list the award as posthumous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Douglas' MM was awarded several months after being killed in action, does this not qualify as being posthumous? If not please advise the correct terminology. Wp20151110 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A posthumous award usually means the individual was killed in the action for which they were awarded the medal. In 1944, only the VC and GC (and Mention in Dispatches) were awarded posthumously. It can also mean that the individual was killed after the action for which the medal was awarded but before the medal was gazetted, but in this case this is usually noted in the London Gazette (and is not), and in any case the article says MacDonald was killed on D-Day. Most mysterious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notably mysterious? Wp20151110 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In 1919 Winston Churchill, the Secretary of State for War gave this Parliamentary answer regarding awards (VC excepted): "As far as other medals awards and decorations recommendations for the award can be approved if the officer or soldier was alive when the recommendation was initiated. Where through the stress of military operations the recommending authority was prevented from recording his recommendation prior to the death of the officer or soldier, it being fully his intention of so doing the recommendation is still valid if the cause of the delay is duly certified." Presumably MacDonald's MM came under this proviso. Nthep (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems unlikely if he was killed on the day he performed the action for which he won the MM. And also very unusual for it not to be noted in the LG that he was deceased. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indication of notability, fits WP:A7 greyzxq talk 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added signifcance and importance of the person. Wp20151110 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability as required by Wikipedia. Intothatdarkness 17:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated article with details of named memorial in his home city of Halifax 78.151.195.95 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Proquest, I'm seeing three year 2000 The Daily News Halifax articles relating to the sportsfield naming. I can't find anywhere that archives the The Chronicle Herald - which is still independently owned. I don't this article can be fully evaluated until these sources are checked; this may take digging through microfiche.
This article could also possibly be merged to Halifax Regional Centre for Education#Elementary schools as it appears to be the playing field for Westmount School; though it's not clear to me if it's part of the school, or the park. The park is named Westmount Elementary School Park - but belongs to the Halifax Regional Municipality, though is missing from Parks in Halifax, Nova Scotia#Urban and suburban parks (another merge possibility). A third merge possibility is to the local neighbourhood, Westmount Subdivision. Interestingly the Westmount Subdivision already references nearby Saunders Park which contains information about another WWII (and WWI) veteran - Donald Saunders.
My advice to User:Exemplo347User:Wp20151110 and User:78.151.195.95 (who I assume are the same editor, with an accidently failure to login) is to read WP:GNG carefully; all the primary references in the world (military records, birth info, etc.) won't get the article kept. What is needed is sources such as books, magazines, newspapers that mention and discuss him. Unless this can be done quickly, redraftification or working in your sandbox might be the best solution until more appropriate references are found. Not, I also saw an August 1944 listing of his death in the Toronto Star. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Psst, I'm not the article creator) Exemplo347 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful advice! Added three secondary sources and another primary. Wp20151110 (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - those are different, and may be better, than what I could see (without text). That's the right direction. It would help if you formatted the references like a typical Wikipedia article, using <ref>{{cite ... }}</ref> tags in the text. I've added one of the Halifax Daily News references into the article from Proquest (which is going to be difficult for people to review - first it's not available through the Wikipedia Proquest subscription - though you can see the headline from the link. Second, I accessed it through my local library account's Proquest subscription ... but even then, only the citation information is available. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Book reference Wp20151110 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just another copy of MacDonald's medal citation. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the recommendation for the award. The citation is a different text. It was included to clarify the war diary battle report and to help readers. Wp20151110 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One Event is indeed a risk. Though a merge could mitigate that. I really am not sure we (including me) can judge without seeing the contents of all these newspaper articles. And understanding what happened in 1949 that lead to this commitment for this particular soldier - one of hundreds of Canadians killed in the battle on that day - not to mention bigger one-day battles, such as the 2,500 killed at Vimy Ridge, and 1,000 killed at Dieppe. It's certainly not as nearly cut-and-dry as it initially appeared. Nfitz (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the problem lies. You have advised a lesser experienced editor to add references to an article even though nobody, presumably not even the editor themselves, can see the actual content of the references. Take those references out and we're back to square one. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article author hopefully logged in this time ... I have photocopies of the referenced newspaper articles and additional private correspondence. How should they be included? Wp20151110 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. There's nothing wrong with having off-line references; generally editors assume good faith and accept this at face value. But it becomes more difficult when some editors are challenging notability. I'd think (and maybe there's a better solution), that putting the articles somewhere on the Internet temporarily would be the best solution. Copyright becomes an issue (which for newspapers is, I think, the longer of 50 years, or 50 years plus the life of the author (if one is identified). Which makes copyright of anything later than about 1920 difficult - which would preclude putting it on Wikipedia, even temporarily. Though the Internet is a bit more wild-west. Nfitz (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way we can see the articles in question? I'd happily take an email. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sure, address? Wp20151110 (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've examined the sources & references that have been added since I nominated this article and none of them meet the threshold required by WP:GNG. They all seem to be discussing his actions on D Day or the naming of a local park in recognition of his actions on D Day. This falls under the WP:ONEEVENT disqualification critera because, if you remove all mention of that event from the article, all that is left is the fact that he was born. That's not enough for a Wikipedia entry. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Exemplo347, I'm surprised that when you read all the articles you didn't think any of them met GNG. From the extent and detail in the articles, I disagree. I don't think GNG is the issue here ... it's WP:ONEVENT. So how would this be deleted, rather than merged to a few sentences in Westmount Subdivision - similar to how there's discussion in the Saunders Park (Nova Scotia) article about Donald Saunders (in the very same neighbourhood!) ? Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion appears to be centred on the issue of one event. Are single events not worthy of an article or is it lack of additional information about the subject? If it is the later what would be required? An example would be most helpful. Wp20151110 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - thanks for the copy of the articles, User:Wp20151110. There's more than one, from more than one publication, that are GNG quality. The real issue then becomes whether ONEEVENT applies or not (and it's debatable, as there seems to be 2 events, a half-century apart). But even if it does apply, then this page is not eligible for deletion - it would be merged - presumably to Westmount Subdivision. I'll try add detail to the current references later on. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well-intentioned, but no substantial coverage. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give an example of what would be needed to make the article coverage substantial. Wp20151110 (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Douglas_Bertram_MacDonald&oldid=1160141523"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Bertram MacDonald, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.