Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William B. Ault

William B. Ault

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

William B. Ault (edit | 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 and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep An airstrip and warship was named after him which are "significant award or honor"s and so pass WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep appears to have SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Arguably played a significant role in the attacks on Lae and Salamaua and the Battle of the Coral Sea. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mztourist, Which sources contain SIGCOV? Does the award suffice for him to pass NSOLDIER? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Piotrus one Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 of SOLDIER, but doing a Google Books search brings up sufficient mentions of him in various books that I believe amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mztourist, Hmmm. I'd rather see a few dedicated paragaph in one source, but you are probably right. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep combined the mentions, the Silver Star and the airstrip and warship all together squeak this past BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to USS Harry F. Bauer. Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Silver Star. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge (very selectively) to USS Harry F. Bauer per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."  // Timothy :: talk  05:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete a ship named after you is not a signficant honor under the conditions under which this naming actually occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, it's more appropriate to have relevant information (specifically military career and silver star action) about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is he second nomination. This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
  

This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.

This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.

A warship and an airstrip were named for him.

Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)