Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen

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 procedural keep without prejudice for renomination. There are far too many articles here to evaluate in a single discussion, where each requires individual assessment, and I see no point keeping this open for the full duration. — The Earwig ^talk 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Henry Allen

[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 as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason or that they received ever lesser awards/never received any.:

Herbert R. Amey, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in each case to the relevant ship pages as ship namesake, not independently notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep John Martin Howard. He is notable for being the first U.S. navy mine personnel killed in WWII. He was also commemorated on the Tablets of the Missing at the Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial and on a plaque in the St. Nicholas minster church in Great Yarmouth, England. This seems a strange way to delete pages since you have lumped them all under one person where each page should have it's own debate.Dwkaminski (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all branches and specialism had one of their number be the first one killed in WWII. That does not make them notable per se.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lance Edward Massey. He was one of the three torpedo squadron leaders (along with John C. Waldron and Eugene E. Lindsey) at the Battle of Midway. He is of equal importance as the other two, who have not been chosen for deletion. If one is researching the Battle of Midway and in particular the role that the three torpedo squadrons played in the eventual victory, Massey needs to be included. I am uncertain as to why there seems to be a need to delete this profile. He was awarded both the Distinguished Flying Cross as well the Navy Cross.
I wouldn't say the sourcing on Waldron looks that strong. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with keeping those ones, due to their role in the Battle of Midway. Sources exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the following since they meet first criterion of WP:SOLDIER for multiple awards at 2nd highest level (both just below Medal of Honor according to respective Wiki pages):

I agree that they can be kept per #1 of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the redirect suggestion to the namesake navy ships for the others, but is there an option to merge some basic information on these individuals (name, rank, service, medal) to those pages? LizardJr8 (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Confused as to why there is a need to remove articles. Jp421 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these have sufficient sourcing to truly meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all It's a challenge just to count the number of articles in this bundle – over 200, I reckon. The nomination is poorly explained and some spot checks indicate that it has been done sloppily. For example, the creator of Rogers Blood was not notified specifically. It appears that there will always be a sensible alternative to deletion such as improvement of the article; merger to the corresponding ship or to the battle or to a list of medal winners. As AfD is not cleanup, we should not have to go through collective agonies to figure all this out across such a huge number of articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (procedural), the nominator has got to be kidding! around 220 articles bundled together, even a perfunctory 5min search for each ie. googing and checking the first 20 results will take 16+ hours (without food/sleep/toilet breaks:)), can a nice admin please close this and suggest that (much) smaller bundles may be made over the next few weeks (after a WP:BEFORE is made on each article of course:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sampled eight of the submitted (with surnames ending in W) - six were sourced only to DANFS, one had DANFS and another source and one was sourced to DANFS and two other books (but no specfic cites to verify with). That's six that currently fail the GNG requirement for notability even if we ignore WP:Soldier. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I repeated examination with the Gs - nine of the eleven only had DANFS as a source. Sourcing on the other two was barely anything more. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to delete anything per WP:NEXIST which explains that
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You left off "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.". Which is why a lack of sources is problematic GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, the onus is on the nominator to do due diligence rather than making an absurd and idle challenge of hundreds of articles. "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search;..." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) You're making an assumption that there hasn't been a check.

2) You're also making a Poisoning the well type statement that the challenge is "absurd and idle" (given that we have what appears to many articles - over a decade old - which seem to be just a word-for-word copy of the (PD) DANFS entry dressed up in wikipedia clothes (compare Kenneth_Martin_Willett with http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/escorts/de354.txt).GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is public domain so, if that text works, there is no need to fix it. We don't need change for change's sake. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. Completely impossibe to assess this many nominations. Should never have been mass nominated like this. Allen was awarded two Navy Crosses, so clearly passes WP:SOLDIER #1 (thus the whole nomination is based on an inaccuracy). Others may have too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep. Completely impossibe to assess this many nominations. Some should be deleted, some should be kept, most need some discussion. // Timothy :: t | c | a 11:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on procedural grounds as per the above comments. I will say that I went through approximately 20 not already mentioned, and found none which passed GNG or NSOLDIER, although I agree that some of the above do meet those criteria, hence the need for a procedural close. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on procedural grounds as per the above comments. No compliance with WP:Before. This is simply vexatious and akin to WP:Vandalism, even if I assume WP:AGF. See WP:Preserve. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and a {{trout}} to the nominator for making a nomination that, while it may not have been consiously intended as such, is indistinguishable from disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. This mass nomination is simply impossible to properly assess on each individual article's merits; it doesn't take much slipping of good faith to feel that it was either intended as such or has that effect as a feature and not a bug. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per procedural reasons, and extend trouting to anyone in the discussion who claims to have read every single one of these articles. jp×g 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These wholesale nominations are plainly Abusive and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is the worst I've seen; although there may be worse in some other universe. This deserves sanctions. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep without prejudice to renomination, it is impossible to judge the notability of anyone in a list this large. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per DW and others. They deserve one by one discussion. Mass noms are almost always a bad idea (waste of everyone's time) and this is not an exception. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Users should AGF wrt the nominator. In my limited experience if you do mass nominations people say you should nominate individually and if you do individual nominations people say you should have done a mass nomination or there are different results for similar pages. I assume that the nominator was trying to save time by proposing a mass deletion rather than individual AFDs, but as various Users have objected to it then as there are hundreds of pages about non-notable recipients of second level awards that had ships named after them in WWII, individual AFDs will probably take most of 2021 to complete. Mztourist (talk) 10:05, 22 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.