Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vincent Speranza

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 keep. There's rough consensus here that, for better or worse, the sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Speranza[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vincent Speranza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this article on the Discord when the creator asked for help nominating it for GA. I took a look, but quickly realized that not only is it not ready for GA, my read of the sourcing suggests that the subject does not meet the GNG. I hate to take an article by someone brand new to AfD, so I asked the people at to have a look in case I was being overly strict with my reading of the sources. It's been a few days and no one has disagreed with my read, so here we are. From Hill To Shore and Gaarmyvet commented at the MilHist post and may wish to comment here.

Source analysis follows:

  1. Praesidus is a watch company and they named a watch for him; this is PR.
  2. WP:ANCESTRY
  3. We Are The Mighty is a digital media company that does marketing and branding. They are not a reliable source.
  4. An unbylined short piece published by the US Embassy in Belgium. I could maybe squint my way to calling this reliable, but I wouldn't call it significant coverage.
  5. 101st Airbone looks like a fansite, but isn't significant coverage anyway
  6. DVIDS appears to be a press agency of sorts for military members so I'm not sure it's independent. See their About
  7. The Lincoln Library PDF is an oral history interview, so it's a primary source not independent for the purpose of notability.
  8. NAU Review is basically local news coverage by Northern Arizona University, this is decently long but I'm not sure I would count it as reliable for the purpose of notability
  9. An obituary for his wife not SIGCOV of him
  10. Coffee or Die is a coffee company, not a reliable source of historical information
  11. The watch thing again, x2
  12. Unclear what kind of project Purple Foxes United is - looks like a convention? but maybe there's comic books also? - but it isn't an RS

In my own searches, I found

  1. this Stars and Stripes article is probably the strongest source about him, but on its own is insufficient to support a claim to notability
  2. this, which is a short local fluff piece that I would argue doesn't contribute much to notability

Overall, I just don't see that GNG is met. I could possibly support a merge to Siege of Bastogne since he's largely known for a single amusing incident that occurred during that, but I'm not sure if it would be considered WP:UNDUE importance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Belgium, and New York. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unfortunately, this is a GNG failure. I also looked for significant coverage in newspapers and came up empty. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing my !vote to weak keep in light of particularly the French-language newspaper sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I also was unable to find any substantial source material to strengthen the case here. However, editors may wish to add referenced statements to the related Wikidata page at Vincent Speranza (Q115948441). If this Wikipedia page is deleted, gathering sourced material on Wikidata will make it easier to recreate an article here if notability is established in the future. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have lost internet access and can only connect on a metered connection. I don't have time or bandwidth to review the newly added source material, so I am withdrawing my !vote. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Subject has received coverage in English, French and Dutch media, often being a core subject of the relevant article (so not insubtantial coverage). This passes WP:BASIC as multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. While his core notability stems from one incident in 1944, this is not a case of someone receiving coverage for one incident and then being forgotten. He also appears to be known for frequent participation in veteran-related events in his retirement. Yes, there are thousands/millions of old veterans in the world, but if secondary sources feel that specific individuals are worthy of significant coverage, then we should reflect those secondary sources. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Decorated soldiers, but most of these medals they gave out by the thousands in WW2, he's not much different than any other person that served at that time. Campaign medals are basically given for having served in a particular part of the globe during wartime, nothing special about them; I hate to call them participation trophies, but same sort of idea, everyone who plays gets one. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DVIDS is a distribution platform for the US military to publish news photos and videos; unsure if it's a private concern or not. Regardless, it's a valuable source for anyone looking for public domain photos to add to wikipeda, 99% of the photos are created by US military members for official purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but my question for the purpose of this AfD is, is it editorially independent, or do they just publish whatever's submitted to them? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's run by or for the military, I don't think it's an RS, basically self-published work. First-party sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC as shown by analysis of sources above. Original creator is V.B.Speranza who is presumably related to the subject. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness to the creator, I did ask about that on Discord in a private DM, and they advised they were not a relative but felt inspired by him, hence the account name. Whether that feels believable I leave up to you, although based on their other drafts for similar people I'm actually inclined to believe them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that its the only live page they've created that seems implausible. They have also created Draft:Tom Rice (private) who seems to be comrade in arms of Vincent Speranza, presumably to prop up the Vincent Speranza page. Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They also made Draft:Liu Chi-Sheng and their first effort was a draft on some random civil parish in Portugal. Two other things that go in their favor, to me: one, the article doesn't have any unexplained/unsourced personal details, which I find to be typical when I'm dealing with a relative (I'm talking stuff like exact DOBs that don't appear in any sources, personal photos, etc), and two, they edit other things, while relatives tend to be fairly laser focused on their family member. I'm willing to extend sufficient good faith to believe that they're trying to write about a neat thing they came across, although obviously it doesn't change my opinion on the subject's notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was an average soldier who helped win a war. That not significant--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The individual has been significantly covered in multiple independent reliable sources and passes WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC. These sources include:
    1. Stars and Stripes
    2. SI Live 1, 2
    3. Ouest France
    4. La Manche Libre
    5. La Presse de La Manche
    6. The United States Army itself
      While the article is not in great shape (and lacks many of these listed sources), WP:DEL-CONTENT is explicit that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page and WP:NEXIST notes that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, frankly, the fact that this individual is getting significant coverage in multiple languages across multiple continents indicates to me that there is no doubt that this person meets the relevant notability criteria. Some people above also appear to be attempting to implicitly argue this should be deleted for failing the historical SOLDIER essay (i.e. he was an average soldier), but per WP:NSOLDIER the essay is deprecated and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a friendly note, searching newspaper archives is somewhat complicated; there appears to be a man with the same name who lived in the NYC metro and got a Purple Heart for service in Korea. I'm not able to tell if they're the same person, but the sources noted in my commentabove all appear to be about the article subject. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 07:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Red-tailed hawk's excellent search work. I incorporated some of these in the article and cleaned out unsuitable references. While I still do have some issues about the possible WP:COI, Speranza seems to meet WP:BASIC. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may as well try and ping people who voted before for a discussion about the new sources in the article and this discussion: Premeditated Chaos, Sammi Brie, Oaktree b, Mztourist, From Hill To Shore, Gaarmyvet. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No change to my !vote, I have never felt that outliving your contemporaries is notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a WP:DEL-REASON that you're basing that on, though. I can't just delete a page because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My deletion reason remains WP:BASIC, I don't regard recent media coverage of an old soldier as satisfying BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the text of WP:BASIC that would plausibly support that view. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Thanks for the excellent source location, I think he was featured in the newspapers as he was one of the few soldiers still alive that was present during the war, but coverage is coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read what you're writing, but, imho, a person has to be notable for something. Low level awards and being in a significant place just don't get me there.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the part of WP:DEL-REASON or WP:N, that supports the claim that being significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple is not a reason why someone is notable? I'm not able to find it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the decorations are notable, and simply "being there" isn't enough. I have never been persuaded by either the "last person standing" or obituary arguments as being signs of notability. Intothatdarkness 19:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Two things:
    1. If you read through the sources, the coverage is not simply about him being old. The piece in Stars and Stripes, from 2013, is explicitly about his actions in World War II, including the incident with the beer. The first piece from SI Live also dedicates over one thousand words to his service in World War II and his life more broadly. That's hardly a "last person standing" sort of coverage.
    2. With respect to " obituary arguments", would you please point to the piece anyone is arguing to establish SIGCOV that is an obituary? I'm not able to find it, so I'd appreciate some help.
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The obituary is a common claim here by some that it's an automatic indication of notability (it hasn't surfaced in this particular discussion yet, but has in others...you can go find them if you like). Given that obituaries are often paid content, I don't support that view. Having a beer named after you isn't a big deal in the age of micro-breweries. Sorry...still not convinced he's notable. Intothatdarkness 23:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a point of clarity (not trying to change your !vote) this a BLP, so there isn't an obituary argument to be made at this time. However, as with the varying quality of sources, so too are there varying qualities of obituaries. If a reliable source independent of the subject wrote an obituary after their death, that would just be one more reliable source to consider. An obituary written by a family member and placed in the advertisement section of a local newspaper (outside of editorial scrutiny) would be much less reliable. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the US, at least, many obituaries are generated by family members or perhaps the funeral home. They show up in the obituary section of papers, but they certainly aren't independent in the sense you mean. Those same obituaries could then be 'recycled' in other papers, obscuring their origins. I've always been deeply suspicious of the "obituary exception" to sourcing (to be clear, that's my own name for the concept, and I agree it doesn't apply here at this time).
    I also question the relevance of the newspaper stories. If he's the only one still alive (or willing to talk to them), that doesn't equate to notability. Neither does participating in veteran-related events. Had he organized them or something similar I might be persuaded, but this just doesn't reach that bar. Intothatdarkness 16:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Red-tailed hawk stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process. Mztourist (talk)
To be honest, I've been reading some of the thoughts above; I'm not terribly fussed if it gets deleted. It's the weakest of keeps. I mean they interview the guy as he's one of the few soldiers left from that era to be able to tell his own story. He wasn't some super commando type that captured 40 Germans by himself, just a guy doing his duty for his country. I'm not sure that meets notability or not. I think this might be more of a human interest story than anything else. IF it does get deleted, I'd contact the family member that created it, they'll more than likely want to keep a copy in some form. It's still an impressive piece of sleuthing to be able to put this together. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN bio of some kind of relations to the author. "Been there" and "outlived comrades" are not reasons to keep. Fails WP:BASIC. UtherSRG (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think the two delete votes above are using WP:BASIC correctly, which says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.". Whether we believe he is or he isn't notable, or whether "recent media coverage of an old soldier" (and there is significant coverage of the subject from 2013, 2017 and 2022) should be regarded is irrelevant to the actual guideline that's being improperly cited here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to pass GNG per Red-tailed hawk. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This took some contimplation. The subject was a soldier at the Siege of Bastogne of around 18,000, likely among those considered "The Battered Bastards of Bastogne". He reportedly received the Purple Heart but there is no mention of the particulars. The story of the "beer in a helmet" has not been denied but all these years later there is still “Airborne Beer” served in the taverns. The notability of a person would be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. I find the origin of the "beer in a helmet" to be particularly interesting and unusual enough to warrant mention in an article. Since the subject appears (by multiple sources) to be the origin of the story, to me, he is "worthy of notice". -- Otr500 (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2023 (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/Vincent_Speranza&oldid=1135613721"