Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert G. Bradley

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 merge to USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49). Consensus is that this topic is not independently notable, but some of its coverage may be useful to the target article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Bradley[edit]

[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. One award of the Navy Cross doesn't make him notable. Most of the details are about the USS Princeton (CVL-23) and not about his role in its sinking. Adequate details of his role as namesake of USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49) are on that page Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49) as the ship's namesake. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bradley is notable as evidenced by the fact that the United States Navy named a $122 million warship after him. (that's the mid 1970s estimated per unit cost, or $679 million in today's dollars.) Relatively few people have received that honor and I would assert that if a person is notable enough to have a 4,000 ton ship named for them (this is not a 20 foot boat) they are notable enough for a wikipedia article. As to un-forking this back into the ship's article, the material as it stands right now is lengthy enough to support its own article. I don't think it's adequate to give him a single sentence in the ship's article with no separate article, and I wouldn't want to insert a huge amount about the namesake into the ship's article, which is lacking its own 30 year history right now. As for the Navy Cross, that is also a rare honor and many of the recipients, certainly the ones with ships or bases named after them, are notable enough to have an article. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted a note to WP:SHIPS, as I requested on my talk page since I am largely wiki-retired. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bradley is notable as evidenced by the fact that the United States Navy named a $122 million warship after him. WP:NOTINHERITED. "Notable enough for a ship to be named for them" is not what notability means in Wikipedia. As for the Navy Cross, it's considered to confer notability if it has been awarded to someone multiple times (WP:SOLDIER #2). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49). I do not think that the half-sentence in the ship article is adequate; this should be summarised in paragraph to inform better why the ship has this name it does (together with the photograph). His notability is well sufficient for such content, but I agree not for an individual article per WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Davidships (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into USS Princeton (CVL-23) and USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49) as required such that there is enough info in the former to know why he was awarded the Navy Cross and in the latter why a ship was named after him nearly 40 years later. Actions are notable but not, at this point going on the sources available, the man himself for separate article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 16 January 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.