Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Joseph Doherty

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 redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14). Consensus is that the topic does not have sufficient coverage in independent sources to qualify for a stand-alone article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Joseph Doherty

[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} 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 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} 17:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The subject didn't win the Navy Cross as the nomination states. This indicates that these nominations are being made without accurately reading and researching the subjects. In any case, a warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a DFC. 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) 03:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to USS_Doherty_(DE-14). 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 10:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS_Doherty_(DE-14) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the 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. No objection to merging properly sourced content. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS_Doherty_(DE-14), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 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 them that they named a ship 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. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Doherty (DE-14) per SOP. The DFC is pretty far down the awards list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 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.