Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Benda (naval officer)

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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Benda (naval officer)

[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, not sure if being the CO of the Constitution automatically makes him notable Gbawden (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes GNG on his own with a number of RS discussing him. Additionally, he passes WP:SOLDIER which states that if "there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." All of those subjects are covered in this article. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the references are to hometown media. Being officer of the deck during an operation is not noteworthy. I don't have a good sense about whether being in command of USS Constitution is a valuable "ticket punch." Failing delete, maybe wp:userfy.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaarmyvet:, can you tell me where it says local media does not count as a WP:RS? —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slugger O'Toole:, I didn't mean to suggest that is doesn't, only that, imho, notability requires coverage at a non-local level.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but it’s not what GNG says: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” There is significant coverage from multiple reliable sources here. —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local coverage isn't enough, or we'd be inundated by every two-bit local politician. The Constitution isn't a capital ship, and Benda isn't even its captain yet, so WP:SOLDIER isn't satisfied either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, @Clarityfiend:, can you show me where it says local coverage isn't enough to determine notability? All I can find in the policy is significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, nothing in WP:SOLDIER says the person has to be a captain of a ship, or even a high ranking officer. In fact, it says exactly the opposite: "For example, Teddy Sheean, despite having only received a relatively low-level military decoration, is notable..." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Victoria Cross for Australia is "a relatively low-level military decoration"?!? It's the highest honour in the Australian military, equivalent to the Victoria Cross. On the other hand, Benda doesn't have much more than his rank to support his alleged notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about Teddy Sheean or the Australian military. I'm only quoting the policy you cited. However, if all Benda had was a rank then I would agree he wasn't notable. What makes him notable is the significant coverage in reliable sources. You may not like those sources, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequately sourced and a good read; decent amount of coverage. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSOLDIER and yes, more than local coverage is needed to prove WP:GNG for an international Wikipedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked this of several others, GPL93 and Celestina007, and no one yet yet has been able to cite for me where it says local sources do not qualify for the purposes of GNG. Can you? Thanks. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a court of law, that there isn't anything explicitly saying local sourcing doesn't count towards notability doesn't mean that editors can not see it that way. It's clearly an opinion held by many WP editors, which could be easily seen in itself of the application of critical reasoning or common sense (I'm not saying that it is the only definitive way to see it, but that it can be seen that way). Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, but we regularly exclude certain classes of sources, like WP:SPONSORED content or WP:USERGENERATED websites. It seems to me that if the community felt that local media did not adequately qualify as a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we would have a category for it. In this context, I think every source used is reasonable and reliable for the statement it is backing up. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale provided by GPL93 & Clarityfiend. I do not see WP:NSOLDIER satisfied/accomplished here. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't hold flag rank. Not particularly significant otherwise. Fails WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (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.