Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Craig

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 John R. Craig (DD-885)#Namesake and commissioning. This time around, consensus is rather clearly against keeping this as a separate article. There is no clear consensus about whether and what to merge, but this seems to be a moot distinction because much content appears to have been merged already. It's now up to the editorial process to determine whether to reduce or enhance the biographical content in the target article. Sandstein 13:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Craig

[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} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:24, 24 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) 17:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. 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) 03:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS John R. Craig (DD-885) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, 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. I ce'd the article to help with the merge. // Timothy :: talk 14:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on the ship.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS John R. Craig (DD-885) per TimothyBlue. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 26 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 in 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.

A warship was named for him. WP:Preserve.

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 (☎) 15:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885), insufficient (nothing) to demonstrate it meets the GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "no consensus" closure and a similarly inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 February 2.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. “Redirect” to one ship doesn’t make sense when he is strongly associated with two: the USS Grampus (SS-207) and the USS John R. Craig (DD-885). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current content of paragraph 1 of USS John R. Craig (DD-885)#Namesake and commissioning is more than sufficient for a bio stub. In terms of article structure, it is a perversion to have a garden path structure of ship -> namesake -> command history -> other ships unconnected to first ship. The bio should have an incoming link from every ship he commanded, and three incoming links justifies the standalone article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with option to merge to USS John R. Craig (DD-885). Through all the lengthy history of this article, there have not been enough sources presented to meet the GNG. Longstanding policy (WP:ATD-M) permits the non-notable article to be merged into another, notable article. In this case, the USS John R. Craig is the appropriate one, since it's necessary to explain why the ship was named for him. The ironic thing here is that no content needs to be lost: it can all be merged over. The only question is whether our coverage of this man needs to be fragmented into two articles, and policy is clear that it shouldn't be. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If not disposing of most of the content, this merge will mean that the USS John R. Craig (DD-885) article will contain a sizeable outtake of discussion of the command history of the USS R-17 (SS-94) as well as the command history and fate of the USS Grampus (SS-207). That is perverse meta:Structurism. It doesn’t fit. It would be an obvious case for a spinout of this person. Are you sure you have really thought this hypothetical merge through? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict with Mztourist, below) What is this article? It's text from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, in which it serves to explain why the Craig was named after him. As such, it would work perfectly well at the article about the Craig, where it would fulfill the same function: explaining why the ship was named for him. The section about the "command history and fate of the Grampus" covers exactly three sentences, and the section about the R-17 covers exactly one sentence. That's not "a sizeable outtake": it's basic background, and it would be useful to the reader. As such, there's no danger of turning the ship's article into a coatrack, and a merge proposal is certainly not "perverse". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already merged all relevant information on Craig onto USS John R. Craig (DD-885). It amounts to one paragraph. The loss of the USS Grampus (SS-207) is covered on that page. SmokeyJoe the pages for USS R-17 (SS-94) and Grampus don't feature command histories, so that argument doesn't carry much weight. Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885), where the relevant content has already been merged to. Does not meet WP:BIO, so no reason to keep as a stand-alone article. A plausible search term, with a clear redirect target. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now I strongly suspect we'll find sources solid enough to meet the GNG, but we aren't there yet. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS John R. Craig (DD-885), which is basically the same as merging since the important content has already been merged. The only source cited in the article is [1]. This is a wiki which accepts user-submitted content, and therefore isn't very reliable. It does link to other pages, however they aren't great sources either (the guy's college yearbook, two other memorial associations and a service history). I wouldn't be surprised if there's some other brief coverage of him from when he got the medal or when the ship was named after him, but I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Even if having a ship named after you does meet WP:ANYBIO as a "well-known and significant award or honor", WP:BIO#Special cases says that subjects which meet ANYBIO but fail the GNG should be merged into another article. Since his main significance is having the ship named after him it makes sense to cover him in the article about the ship. Hut 8.5 18:43, 16 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.