Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dixon (USCG)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dixon (USCG)[edit]

Richard Dixon (USCG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A United States Coast Guard sailor. Received a Coast Guard Medal, which is below a Silver Star in precedence. A Coast Guard cutter will be named after him, but this does not confer nobility. There are no independent, reliable references about him in the article. Coast Guard refs are not independent as they come from Dixon's employer. Defense Media Network reference is about the ship. Prod was contested on grounds that Coast Guard refs are independent in that they were not written by Dixon or Dixon's supervisors, medal is notable and having a ship named after you is notable. Discussion to place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question on if Coast Guard refs are independent. Bgwhite (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we regard having a ship named after him as sufficient for notability, or if we regard the medal as sufficient for notability, then having only official references to prove it is fine. The naming of the ship and the award of the medal (s) are simple, straight-forward things that can be established from records. For special notability guidelines, some are regarded as limiting the GNG guideline, some (such aw WP:PROF) are alternatives to them. Since we make the guidelines, we can decide how to use them. I do not know what the consensus status is of the guidelines in question here, but personally, I would prefer to use any rational special guideline rather than the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (a little) and redirect him and all others listed at Sentinel class cutter#Namesakes to that spot, with the exception of Richard Etheridge. Jobs well done, but not to the point of meriting their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You realize the class will contain 58 vessels? Even a little paragraph about each namesake would mean that namesake mini-bios would overwhelm the content on the actual class. The namesake section would be extremely hard to navigate -- unnecessarily so.

      You don't say why you opted for "merge", but you seem to be second guessing Dixon's peers -- the senior USCG personnel who thought that Dixon and the others did deserve the very significant distinction of having their heroism recognized by being made the namesake of $50 million vessel.

      The awarding of medals, honors, and other signs of recognition of heroism can be tainted by politics -- see Pat Tillman's Silver Star. But the more years of distance that separate the act from the award, the more pure, and the less likely the decision is to be tainted by politics. Geo Swan (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect as discussed on the MILHIST talk page to the article about the vessel which the subject will be the namesake of (USCGC Richard Dixon (WPC 1113)). The question here is notability. The subject has received coverage, but mainly from sites connected to the service which he was in, so those would be considered primary sources. The question arises that the subject has received significant coverage from those primary sources, but mainly passing mention from other sources. Moreover, the subject has received a notable award, so why does the subject not pass WP:ANYBIO? The reason for that is within the context of military notability, there are many awards (for instance the National Defense Service Medal is itself notable) however there has been a consensus within the editing community that focuses on military history that only single awards of the highest medal for valor (such as the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor) or multiple awards of a second level medal for valor (such as the Air Force Cross or the Distinguished Conduct Star) would be considered notable within the military context; this is spelled out in WP:SOLDIER. As the subject of this article has only been verified to have received the Coast Guard Medal twice, it is not sufficient for the subject to have an independent biography article. That being said the ship which will be named for him, will be considered notable per WP:MILUNIT, and thus the content about the subject should be included in that future article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT merging -- Two separate respondents have suggested this article be merged -- but they suggested two different merge targets Sentinel class cutters#namesakes and the nonexistent USCGC Richard Dixon (WPC 1113). It always concerns me when multiple merge targets are suggested. It seems a strong argument that merging is not a good idea.
I have included brief references to Dixon in:
  1. Tillamook Bay -- the location where Dixon lead the two rescues;
  2. US Coast Guard Station-Tillamook Bay -- the base where Dixon was posted;
  3. 44-foot motor lifeboat -- the kind of vessel Dixon piloted during the rescues;
  4. Coast Guard Medal -- the medals Dixon won.
I suggest a reference to Dixon is relevant in all these articles. Those references should be brief, in order not to trigger WP:COATRACK concerns.
I don't think it would be a good idea to try to shoehorn what we can reference about Dixon into any of those articles. Some aspects of what we can document about him are going to be off-topic for any merge topic.
Further the history of merging perfectly adequate, policy-compliant short articles into a subsection of some other article, and then making a redirection to a subsection heading, is a sad one. A simple renaming of the subsection heading breaks these link. One can't put a wikilink to a subsection heading on one's watchlist. There is no "what links here" feature for subsections. Finally, sooner or later someone unaware of the merge decision, excises most or all of the merged material, correctly thinking most or all of that material is off-topic. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT medals and notability -- The suggestion in the WP:SOLDIER essay, that only a nation's topic ranked military medal makes the receipient automatically notable, all by itself is widely accepted. For nations that have a civilian medal, or equal rank, we seem to have accepted that being awarded one of those makes the receipient notable, all by itself -- as per List of George Cross receipients.
But, as per WP:BLP1E, being considered notable for a single event is not that common. Most individuals we consider notable have notability that is due to the sum of multiple factors that establish some notability. There is no rule that being awarded a medal of less importance than a nation's highest confers zero notability. Rather, I suggest, lesser medals confer lesser notability, but still some that should be a factor that can add up to sufficient notability to merit a stand-alone article.
Dixon is also notable for having his heroism recognized by having a vessel -- a vessel that cost $50,000,000 to build -- named after him. Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the ship will be notable per WP:MILUNIT, as Bushranger has said, notability is not inherited. Therefore, the ship will be notable, but the subject (IMHO) is not, and thus why I suggested a redirect to the ship's article page. If anything the page can be made a redirect, and be used as the foundation for the ship's article.
Additionally, although I agree with the idea that lesser medals awarded multiple times commensurate with their level of importance (for instance say per X has been awarded the Silver Star Medal (a third-rate medal awarded for valorous actions) would afford notability, there was no consensus to support this in WP:SOLDIER. And even if that was the case the Coast Guard Medal is not a medal awarded for valorous actions in the face of enemy action, and is equivalent to the Soldier's Medal, and thus is a eighth rate medal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- because I believe having one's daring recognized by being awarded a medal confers notability, and that having a $50,000,000 vessel named in honor of one's heroism also confers notability, and that the two, combined, should be considered sufficient to merit a standalone article. As I suggested above, I believe shoehorning details about Richard Dixon into a subsection of any other article is a disservice to readers. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not inherited from having a ship named after you; the cost of the vessel is irrelevant. (A sheik could easily build a $100,000,000 gold-plated yacht named My Prize Camel, but it doesn't make the camel notable). The Coast Guard Medal is not at the level of medals that confers notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have lots of articles about civilian vessels, named after non-notable civilians, for a non-notable reason. Some vessels are named after the non-notable family members of the company`s founders, for the non-notable reason that it is a family tradition. Some vessels are named after recently retired or recently deceased members of the organization, who did nothing more notable than faithfully fulfilling their non-notable job duties for decades. In those cases where the namesake had no underlying notability, and the naming was for a non-notable reason, I agree that the notability of the vessel is not inherited.

        But when the namesake has inherent notability, and the naming is a further recognition the namesake performed notably, I suggest the naming itself is another notable act, and should add to the sum of notability of the namesake. Richard Dixon, the person, held a daring job, with inherent notability and naming a vessel after him is another symbolic recognition that his daring job performance really stood out.

        For what it is worth, I only came across one USCG vessel, the USCGC Midgett, named after an individual, where we did not have a separate article about the individual, an oversight I corrected by recently starting an article about John Allen Midgett, Jr.

        With regard to your comments about a hypothetical mid-east leader`s pets, and what kind of recognition would or wouldn`t make them notable -- when was the last time you reviewed United States presidential pets? Take a look at those pets who have standalone articles. They had jokes made about them on talk shows; First ladies published books of children`s letters addressed to them; Pet commentators attributed new popularity to their breed to the President`s adoption of them. Basically, various kinds of high profile recognition added up to pass our bar for notability. If some White House pet had a vessel, that cost a fortune, named after it I would argue that high profile recognition was just like the high profile recognition that helped push earlier White House pets into notability.

        The cost is a rough guide. The USCG has a ″Treasury class″ -- where the vessels are named after Secretaries of the US Treasury -- the USCG used to be under the authority of the US Treasury. These are among the largest vessels in the USCG fleet. The USCG has named vessels after heroes prior to the creation of the Sentinel class -- all named after heroes. With only one or two exceptions, are generally of smaller classes of vessels. Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to ″notability is not inherited″ -- Two respondents have repeated that ″notability is not inherited″ -- a subsection of the WP:Arguments to avoid essay. I suggest this general principle is being called upon in a backward fashion. Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day in the USA. We have List of streets named after Martin Luther King, Jr. in recognition that while the namesake, MLK, is notable, not every street, school, bridge, or park, named after him will be notable. If someone started an article on a parkette, or fountain, that was named after MLK, and then that article was nominated for deletion, we would disregard any keep arguments that said the article on the parkette had to be kept because it was named after MLK.

    What I see here is the opposite. The MLK article is not at risk of being deleted. But if it were nominated for deletion, the fact that some US cities and towns figured he was notable enough to name schools, streets, bridges after him would be a strong factor adding to his notability, just the same as magazine articles written about him, or books written about him add to his notability. The fact that thousands of streets, parks, bridges and schools are named after him would be an overwhelming argument that he was notable, even if there were no other argumens.

    If Richard Dixon were really famous, a ship, school, bridge, or park named after him wouldn′t inherit his notability. But, I suggest, that when someone has a notable quality, like their courage, honored by having a ship named after them, it is a factor that adds to their notability and should be considered when determining whether the namesake is notable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • With regard to using the standards from WP:SOLDIER in a civilian context -- While I understand that it is reasonable for those coming here from the military wikiproject to be tempted to approach the question of whether Richard Dixon meets the wikipedia′s notability requirement from a purely military perspective, I think I should warn you that you guys seem to be approaching this from a far too narrow view.
For instance, the comment above has a piped wikilink to Awards and decorations of the United States military#Order of precedence -- calling the Coast Guard Medal an eighth rate medal. Why should those of us who are not participants in the military wikiproject agree that their internal agreements for medals for courage in battle should apply to civilian medals for courage in non-military contexts -- like risky daring rescues?

As I have already noted, the UK has the George Cross, a medal awarded for courage in non-military contexts, that is considered equal in rank to the Victoria Cross -- ie at the very top rank. If you review that list of George Cross recipients you will see that they too were deemed to be notable solely for being awarded that medal -- because it is of equivalent rank to the Victoria Cross. Using reasoning that I don′t follow, a participant from the military wikiproject seems to be suggesting we should classify Dixon′s Coast Guard Medal as at the 8th rank, simply because he did not display his courage in battle.

Why should the rest of us agree to have the notability of the Coast Guard Medal be arbitrarily ranked near the bottom of significance because it was not awarded in battle?

On July 3rd 1980 and July 4th 1980 Dixon was contending with enormous 30 foot waves that were pounding on breakwaters that were so close that a moment′s inattention, hesitation, or lapse in ability could have killed Dixon, his crew, and the people he was rescuing. These were tasks that called for skill and calculated daring, of a high order, and it disturbs me to have that discounted because it was not courage displayed in battle. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the limit is based on WP:ANYBIO. In it it says that any individual awarded a "well known and significant award or honor" is assumed to be notable. As I have said before the National Defense Service Medal is itself a well known and (it is the opinion of some) significant medal. Yet it is the consensus of those in the field of military history, that it isn't sufficient enough on its own to establish notability. That being said same goes for the Coast Guard Medal. In the field of military service, the medal isn't as significant as others. Even within the United States Coast Guard, there are more significant medals that could be awarded a Coast Guardsman.
Geo Swan may not agree with the consensus formed, and that's OK, we are all free to our own opinions. And as I have said, there are some consensus that I do not agree with either. But the consensus is made up of a plurality (or majority) of active editors in the discussion which created the essay/guideline/policy. Therefore may I refer to WP:JUSTA.
Even if we dismiss SOLDIER, I do not see significant coverage as described in WP:GNG applying to the subject of this biography article. There are primary references that fulfill the WP:INDEPTH requirement, but generally primary references are not used to establish notability.
Additionally 44mlb does not appear to be a reliable source, and the Defense Media Network, is the only non-primary RS given. If the subject is sufficiently notable, the subject would be given significant coverage in published books and/or news media as well; which I do not find to be the case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I believe you are misinterpreting WP:ANYBIO. And I am sorry, but I don't agree that there is a consensus that articles prepared for Coast Guard publications are not "independent", or, as you have claimed, that they are primary sources.
You seem to be interpreting ANYBIO as if it said some honors and awards conferred notability, while the rest conferred zero notability. I suggest that ANYBIO is trying to say is that some honors or awards confer sufficient notability that recipients are notable, even if they have no other factor to make them notable -- as per List of George Cross receipients. Lesser honors and awards confer lesser notability. But almost all of our articles about individuals rely on multiple factors to establish their notability. I don't think there is any question that the notability conferred by lesser honor and awards should factor into determining the notability of any recipient who has multiple factors that could add up to notability.
With regard to the assertion that I am not recognizing consensus -- I can't agree to that. Prior to Bgwhite initiating this {{afd}} we disagreed as to whether the Coast Guard references were "independent", and I asked for opinions at WP:RSN. It appears that Bgwhite was not prepared to recognize opinions expressed there, and initiated a 2nd discussion at the military wikiproject forum. Sorry, even at his or her preferred forum I don't think the opinions expressed there are what you assert they are. Didn't some military enthusiasts think the articles written for the Coast Guard publication were reliable source, doubting only that they were sufficient to establish notability -- all by themselves? But I continue to believe that the definitive opinion as to whether the articles written for the Coast Guard publications were reliable was at the reliable sources noticeboard.
You wrote above that "There are primary references that fulfill the WP:INDEPTH requirement, but generally primary references are not used to establish notability.". I believe you are the first to assert that the articles written for the Coast Guard publications were WP:PRIMARY sources, and I would be interested in how you would explain how the 2010 articles written from the Coast Guard compass, over 20 years after Dixon's heroic acts, could be described as a primary source. Clarification please, if you came to agree that the Coast Guard articles were not primary sources, would you agree that this article should be kept?
I have never asserted that the Coast Guard articles that establish Dixon was the only individual to be awarded two Coast Guard medals conferred enough notability, all by themselves, to make Dixon notable. Rather, it is my position that, added to the IMO considerable notability conferred by having a $50 million vessel named after him, does add up to notability.
I addressed your assertion that having a $50 million dollar vessel named after him was an instance of "notability is not inherited". I believe I rebutted your assertion, because you interpreted WP:NOTINHERITED backwards. The vessel does not inherit any of Dixon's notability. But the naming of the vessel does add to Dixon's notability, as it is a reflection that Dixon's peers admired his courage. I'd appreciate it if you tried to address this point.
I'd appreciate it if you tried to address the points I raised in my comment WRT merging, above. Geo Swan (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Coast Guard Compass is written by the United States Coast Guard, and was the subject's employer. This is not a secondary source. It is a reliable source, but I don't see it as helping to establish notability, as it is not an independent reliable source. Moreover, if there is content about the ship, the ship is the subject not the namesake of the ship. The ship may have been named any number of reasons, for instance the Camel arguement is a great hypothetical example above. Just because something is named for X doesn't make X notable.
As for the awards in relation to WP:ANYBIO, I have stated what past consensus has been in regards to the notability confered by certain military awards, of which the Coast Guard Medal is one of them; and as the consensus has not changed, although laudable, it is not sufficient on its own to confer notability.
For all these reasons a redirect to the ship's article is the best option, and will retain the majority of the content of the article that is the subject of this AfD. It is far preferential than outright deletion, and makes a great compromise of retaining verifiable content while not having an article about a non-notable subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As we appear to be at an impass I am seeking additional opinions per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Geo Swan? You might want to read WP:TLDR. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The consensus at MILHIS is not a WP guideline unless the community accepts it, either explicitly, or implicitly by making consistent decisions on its basis. I accord MILHIS much more respect than most Wikiprojects in this, because of the greater degree of general competence and specialized knowledge shown there, but it is possible that the broader community might accept a more or less restrictive view of something, and in that case the consensus of the broader community prevails. AfDs are the usual way to test this, though if there remains a problem, I suppose an rfc could be run. Personally, I am open to the acceptance of a broader range of medals as indicating notability than the project accepts, including a military's highest level decoration for non-combat bravery. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this were to happen, than any servicemember who is awarded to Soldier's Medal (or equivelent medals) would be considered notable.
And why, if the Soldier's Medal is going to be considered "a well-known and significant award or honor" (as the wording goes in WP:ANYBIO) why not include medals with a higher level of precedence such as the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal or Legion of Merit?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Put a blurb about him in the ships article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His heroic actions earned him a medal of significance, and he had a military boat named after him for his heroism, not for any arbitrary reason. Dream Focus 08:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Coast Guard Medal is not a "civilian" award as alleged by GeoSwan. The U.S.C.G. is an active duty military service, the same as the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The award, as clearly shown by the WP article, is a military award, that is just barely above the Purple Heart. Way too many people get this, and the other services' equivalent award, for it to be viable for notability by itself. I argue all that time that WP:SOLDIER is just an essay and I still believe that--but this award is way too common to confer notability, regardless of assertions to the contrary. GregJackP Boomer! 13:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to NOTINHERITED -- I asked for third party input on the general question of the Use and misuse of NOTINHERITED at WP:Village pump. A respondent wrote, in part, "On the other hand, when what is being named has regional or national importance - such as a battleship for the military, federal government buildings, and the like, there's probably a very good reason that the name was used for such an important item..." In fact senior USCG peers played a significant role in the recommendation that Dixon have his courage recognized by being made a namesake for the cutter. I think that is similar to the kind of notability conferred to academics who earn the recognition of their premier status by their peers. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Richard Dixon (United States Coast Guard Cutter) (or USCGC Richard Dixon or whatever name is thought best) and flip the order of the two sections (with minor editing so they scan correctly). We don't need two articles here. Article for the ship makes more sense. The fact that the ship doesn't yet exist is a barrier, but not insurmountable. It's planned and that's good enough. As it get built it can be updated, and if never built then the whole schmear deleted. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Namesake of the ship plus the original acts of heroism is sufficient to confer notability for our purposes, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (into ship article). - the award is a military award in a military service (USCG) and it is not a high award. Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not meet SOLDIER. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since counter-arguments to the SOLDIER argument have been offered, and Buckshot06 didn't address them, I would remind them that {{afd}} aren't votes, and that the closing administrator is authorized to simply ignore WP:METOO voters. Geo Swan (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I resent this snarky note. The only reference to SOLDIER was supported by RightCowLeftCoast, who reminded us that the medal Dixon was awarded was an eighth-ranked medal. SOLDIER does indeed apply here, and I would request the closing admin to take my policy-based views into account. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional information -- some participants here have stated or implied that having a $50 million dollar vessel named after an individual confers no notability on the namesake. I've suggested the opposite -- that having a committee of peers chose to honor an individual's courage by naming a $50 million vessel is a recognition of how highly regarded informed individuals find that individual. See the quote in the reference below, which I suggest makes clear that naming a cutter after Dixon is an important manifestation of peer recognition. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "U.S. Coast Guard announces name for first Sentinel-class cutter". United States Coast Guard. 2010-03-22. Retrieved 2013-02-01. Previously designated to be named the Coast Guard Cutter Sentinel, the cutter Bernard C. Webber will be the first of the service's new 153-foot patrol cutters. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen approved the change of the cutter's name to allow this class of vessels to be named after outstanding enlisted members who demonstrated exceptional heroism in the line of duty. This will be the first class of cutters to be named exclusively for enlisted members of the Coast Guard and its predecessor services.
  • Comment. I would point out that the article is thin on reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Ref 1 is a USCG blog, and presumably reliable, but is connected to the subject, and more akin to a press release than a secondary source. Ref 2 has the same issues. Ref 3 is a copy of Ref 4, which is a primary source. Further, Ref 3 is a fan website, and not necessarily a reliable source. Ref 5 is a press release from the USCG, and doesn't even mention Dixon. Ref 6 is a reliable secondary source, but only mentions Dixon in passing. None of this establishes notability. You've got exactly one secondary source that is reliable, that does not discuss the subject of the article. The boat isn't even afloat (or for that matter, under construction that I can tell). If this even approaches notability, it is WP:TOOSOON. GregJackP Boomer! 23:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's be realistic here, en.wp's perceptions of who is "notable" are at best second-or-third-hand, inherited from what other bodies (governments, media, the Oscars, medieval scribes choosing the winners of history) thought was notable. Perhaps the USCG may be a better judge of notability of coastguards than a group of people with coffees-stained keyboards (i.e. you and me). If the USCG internal process for USCG:NOTABLE leads them to throw a boat at Bernard C. Webber, Richard Etheridge, William Flores, Robert Yered, Margaret Norvell, Paul Clark, Charles David, Charles Sexton, Kathleen Moore, Joseph Napier, William Trump, Isaac Mayo, Richard Dixon, Heriberto Hernandez then they can establish (expensively) notability just as surely as Simon Cowell. These boats are going to be popping around on the waves for the next 30 years and every time one of them hits the press in an incident, people will Google the person behind the boat, it's going to happen for 11 of 14 boat-namees already, just go with it for the other 3. We aren't protecting the chastity of the vestal virgins here, it's just a bio article. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The subject has a boat named for him. Great! Good for them! However, that now makes the subject notable? The Pet Camel arguement above is a great one, and reminds us all of WP:NOTINHERITED. Say there is a highly notable boat, named after a particular gold fish, and it is made up of gold worth the value of the vessel that is to be commissioned named after SCPO Dixon, so is that gold fish now notable because the vessel named after it is worth X millions of dollars?
Moreover, is everything now worth over X, or who has something worth over X named after them, considered notable based on the value arguement?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Roughly following Geo Swan. The award and the vessel naming are both significant (although not individually notable) awards, the combination of the two both seems to approach notability and lack much in the way of concerns about verifiability. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that there's not a singular good place to merge this content too, and would prefer retaining the content in it's current location as a result. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:11, 10 February 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Dixon_(USCG)&oldid=1177658263"