Deletion of Al Haynes

Comment: U|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 .  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: I wrote the article about Tammie Jo Shults.  There was an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammie Jo Bonnell|over-zealous attempt to delete her but the result was a '''Keep'''.  There was an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesley Sullenberger|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.   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 ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BD9a12eG0okC The Human Contribution'', ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lXFTAAAAMAAJ Pilots, Personality, and Performance'' and ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9WJOAQAAMAAJ How Expert Pilots Think'' in which the subject is discussed in detail as an exemplar.  The subject got an https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/alfred-haynes-dead.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytobits obituary in the NYT which is excellent evidence of notability per  and so passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:SIGCOV||WP:BASIC)