Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Haerter

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. Consensus is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Haerter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E. Prod removed by article creator. "Petition" for MoH has not gone anywhere in several years, and it is unlikely that it will. MSJapan (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedians have not come into an agreement into what constitutes notability for soldiers. WP:PEOPLE states we should check WP:SOLDIER but that page is an essay rather than a guideline. Regardless, the essay states we should consider whether the soldier received the second highest award a nation can confer. This is the case for Haerter who received the Navy Cross. Looking at what we do rather than what we should or should not, one notices that it's quite common to host articles for Navy Cross recipients as we have a standalone category for them: Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States). The category hosts more than 680 articles. Picking one randomly, such as Edward H. Ahrens, we notice it's common in Wikipedia to host articles for soldiers that only detail the event related to the award. Haerter differentiates himself from the rest as it's likely that his Navy Cross will be "upgraded" to a Medal of Honor in the future. As our guidelines are not clear it's difficult to assess whether Haerter deserves an article on its own. However, when looking at the number of references provided and their time horizon once notices that Haerter's notability extends throughout the years: he has been covered in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014. Even in 2015 he is still casually mentioned by the press [1]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Yale and Haerter did display extraordinary heroism warranting the award of the Navy Cross, they are one of nearly 6900 estimated recipients of the Navy Cross. The bill to upgrade their awards died in congressional committee in 2014. The consensus has been that being awarded a nations highest award would confer sufficient notability, but the second highest award does not. This would seem to be WP:BIO1E. Their deaths are tragic but Wikipedia is not a memorial. EricSerge (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you account for time horizon? Haerter continues to be covered by reliable sources years after his death. WP:BIO says that's enough to consider notability. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage still about the 1 Event. EricSerge (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that coverage by Fox News and Business Insider can be considered "local" coverage though. Besides, we don't care if the coverage is local or not. Our notability guidelines only care about independent coverage on time horizon. Haerter fulfills that criteria. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single second-level award is not generally regarded as enough to establish notability. We have deleted many recipients of such awards of various nationalities. I see no reason to make an exception here. If it is subsequently upgraded to the Medal of Honor then obviously he will become eligible for an article, but not yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above about time horizon. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Every serviceman from the United States killed or decorated these days gets plenty of internet coverage. That doesn't make every one of them notable. It's just a symptom of the internet age. Is he any more significant than someone who won a Navy Cross in the Second World War just because he lived in the 21st century? Of course he isn't. That's why we have WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:ROUTINE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Our notability guidelines don't care about date of birth, they only care about whether independent reliable sources cover the subject at hand. In this case they do. Period. Haerter satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then so does pretty much every other American serviceman killed or decorated in the internet age. Do you really believe that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and SOLDIER. As Necrothesp has noted, the consensus is that one second-level award is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2015 (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.