Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. England

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 keep. Consensus is that improvements made to the article since nomination demonstrate notability. This AfD is also distinguishable from others in that more than one ship was named after the subject, which also makes outright redirection/merging less desirable. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John C. England

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

John C. England (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. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 18:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lettler, the guy had two ships named after him. How is this not "a well-known and significant award or honor", let alone twice over? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well developed article. Two ships! No compliance with WP:Before. Easily surpasses WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Usernameunique, two warships, an award and more were named after him which are multiple "significant award or honors" and so the subject passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable as above response. --Bduke (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to USS England (DE-635). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign with no significant award. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor". The USS England (DLG-22) was named after the first ship which had an outstanding combat record sinking 6 Japanese submarines in 12 days, if you look on that page it states "That act caused the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Ernest King, to declare "There’ll always be an England in the United States Navy."") and WP:GNG. Users who state keep above or make accusations of no BEFORE should note that there is no SIGCOV in multiple RS so he is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this fails SIGCOV. What do you mean by "significant"? Why are you quoting an essay as a rationale for deletion? How do you explain away the multiple ship names, awards in his honors, etc.. as not evidence of notability? How do you explain all of these source Talk:John_C._England#Sources and all of these sources John_C._England#References as "fail GNG"? -- GreenC 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I quote both the SOLDIER Essay and GNG. Multiple ships are explained above already if you read it, the 2nd ship is named after the first. Those sources which you only added 30 minutes ago are largely generic, do not feature on the page and still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are either reliable, or unreliable. There is no "generic" which is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- GreenC 05:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generic is defined as: "characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific" Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fails fails SOLDIER. Fails fails GNG. Has significant coverage. When someone has two ships named for them, it is the essence of notability. If the SOLDIER essay can't deal with this, the essay is a failure, and detriment to Wikipedia. -- GreenC 05:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You acknowledge that he fails GNG so you can't say this should be kept. The first ship was named after him, the second ship was named after the first ship. Search for him and you will find there is no SIGCOV in multiple RS about him and so he is not notable, the ships are, he is not. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say it fails "fails SOLDIER" ie. the nomination rationale "fails" ie. I disagree with. All of which I thought would be obvious in the context of a Keep vote and not require many words of explanation. BTW significant coverage can be a single word, it is coverage significant enough to demonstrate notability. It has nothing to do with length or type of coverage, GNG is not a game to find sources with lots of words in them. -- GreenC 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Fails fails" is not at all clear. So you are saying he passes SOLDIER? How? No SIGCOV cannot "be a single word". I suggest you reread GNG because your comments indicate that you don't understand what it says. Mztourist (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing AfD for over 10 years and know exactly what GNG says and what it means. You are confusing "trivial" with few words. "Most important president in History" is significant coverage. More than 1 word in this case, but hopefully you get the point. Significance can be many things, including 5 foot tall letters on the prow of USN ship. -- GreenC 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain then how "significant coverage can be a single word" because that obviously isn't what GNG says. Also explain exactly how he passes SOLDIER and GNG.Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SOLDIER is an essay, if it had community consensus it wouldn't be an essay. It passes GNG on multiple sources Talk:John_C._England#Sources and plenty more beyond that. I consider your inability to comprehend what GNG says to either be an issue of competency or an intentional troll so won't respond further, if you have a question of how GNG works post in the appropriate forum. But I can assure you, there is no word count minimum or maximum for GNG. -- GreenC 04:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know soldier is an ESSAY, that's why SIGCOV in multiple RS is the required standard. Those sources which you just added 20 minutes ago are largely generic, do not feature on the page and still don't amount to SIGCOV. Your inability to justify "significant coverage can be a single word" speaks volumes. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are significant coverage, whatever the weasel word "generic" means. Your inability to recognize GNG has no word limits speaks loud and clear: you do not comprehend GNG. -- GreenC 04:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich coming from the person who says SIGCOV can be a single word... Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are an obvious troll and not sincere. I've given you the benefit of doubt and tried every which way to explain it but your continual trolling just shows you for what you really are, someone to be ignored. -- GreenC 05:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How am I a troll? By pointing out your obviously ridiculous take on SIGCOV? Mztourist (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wise man once said, 'Never play chess with a pigeon. They will like it; they will knock over all the pieces; they will fly away and then declare victory.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wise man once said "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging". Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to USS England (DE-635). 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]
  • Strong Keep. Article has been vastly improved. NOT the article it was when this AFD started. WP:HEY. Easily surpasses WP:GNG; multiple WP:RS. And the navy considers him to be very important. Two ships and a training facility. "There will always be an England." What else is there to say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of work was done since the deletion nomination. [1] Plenty of verifiable referenced information about this person to make a decent article with. The navy thought him notable enough for his heroism to name a ship after him, and that's got to count for something. Dream Focus 22:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a per the multiple 'keeps' above. - wolf 00:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is the second nomination for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen. The record should be corrected accordingly. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An irrelevant technicality as this page was never independently discussed. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It 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. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- GreenC 14:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you know there was a procedural keep on the mass deletion and so pages are being put up individually for deletion. If SIGCOV in multiple RS exists there is plenty of time for them to be added in, if not then they will close as redirect/merge to the relevant ship which is what is occurring in all but a handful of cases. Mztourist (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am frankly shocked, Mztourist, in another AFD on another genuinely notable namesake, didn't you claim that nomination was supported by precedent to delete all articles on namesakes? You failed to acknowledge there had been a procedural keep on a mass deletion. In the interests of civility and collegiality, I urge you to be open and transparent, in every discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which AFD are you referring to? Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominators who do not make a genuinely meaningful effort to comply with BEFORE let down the entire project. Please, if you ever consider nominating another article, be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 29 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_C._England&oldid=1004491326"