Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Eversole

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 no consensus. There is pretty much an even split for Keep or Redirect/Merge here, which of course is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Eversole

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

(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} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor". the second ship was named after the first which was sunk in action, not after him) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS Eversole (DE-404) . If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. PamD 10:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD most of these short namesake bios come from the DANFS entry about the ship (here for Eversole: [1]) and so they should all be on the relevant ship page already. regards Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: "Should" but in the cases I've looked at there is not as much info in the ship page as in the short bio - hence my suggestion of "Merge" not just redirect: where there is content available about the namesake of the ship, the reader should be able to find that content in Wikipedia, whether in the ship article or in a standalone article. PamD 12:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its all in the DANFS page so they can just read it there, or it can be copypasted onto the ship page. Mztourist (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So we should delete and leave a notice for any potentially interested readers to "just go to DANSF"...? I don't think sending people away to other sources is a good business model for WP. Just sayin' - wolf 00:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Eversole (DE-404). Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Andrew - wolf 00:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that having two warships named after him is a "significant award or honor" and thus passes WP:ANYBIO Dream Focus 02:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Eversole (DE-404) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will 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." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Warships are expensive. Being chosen as a namesake of an expensive naval vessel is a form of peer recognition. We acknowledge that peer recognition is a strong notability factor in other fields, like WP:ACADEMIC, and the same should hold true here. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in a previous discussion, "there were nearly 400 destroyers built in the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing classes." As with the submarines (named after fish) and the various coastal patrol boats in WW I (named after just about anything) and Liberty/Victory ships, just coming up with enough names was an effort. This is not a rare distinction: it was a WW II commonplace. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 the 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 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.

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/Silver Star/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.

The Navy thought enough of him that they named two ships in his honor.

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.

As to available sources, it is to be noted that George M. Campbell was part of the same flight, and has a similar AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no discussion of this specific page (nor any of the others below where you've cut and pasted the same comments) in the mass deletion which was closed as a procedural keep. What possible difference would it make if this was marked as the 2nd Nomination? I'll tell you, none whatsoever. He lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS as do most of these single Navy Cross ship namesakes. Spare us the outrage and add RS if they exist. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the timing and the intent and the out of step process. The nominator knew about the prior nomination, as he had done them both. He chose to omit it.

If it makes no difference, why was it hidden?

Why was that fact suppressed? Answer me that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suppressing anything and your argument is nonsense; posting it to all of these AfDs is borderline DE and definetely PW:POINTY. // Timothy :: talk 12:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Your unsubstantiated Ipse dixit statement should not be confused with an explanation by the nominator.

Not one omission. It was repeated, over and over and over again.

Wholesale deletions require wholesale responses. Every article had related problems. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense, the nom doesn't have the power to supress anything, everyone knows this, and you still have no sources. // Timothy :: talk 13:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to USS Eversole (DE-404) for the same reasons as all these other Navy Cross honorees. In a sense, it's a reverse case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as nobody would seriously have considered him worthy of his own article if the ships hadn't been named after him. The Navy Cross is a second tier valor medal, and in this case it is more evident than ever that there's nothing to say beyond a very short action description which is certainly already in the ship articles. We do not need to multiply the number of articles simply to pay tribute to people; indeed, we shouldn't do so. A redirect to the the very short narrative in the ship article is enough to inform readers. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 5 February 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.