Talk:USS Orion (AS-18)/Archive 1

Woodson
The paragraph here on Woodson should be removed. His conduct since leaving service is completely irrelevant here. It smacks of WP:RECENTISM and lends WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to a barely newsworthy incident. wjemather bigissue 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It's standard, as I expect you know and as I believe I communicated to you earlier, to reflect notable people who become notable subsequent to their time at an institution/location.  This is, for example, reflected in I expect tens of thousands of Wikipedia article where a person becomes notable after they are born in place x, or go to school at place y, or work at place z.  This is wholly in keeping with that.  In addition, there has been RS news coverage -- in multiple RSs, of high caliber -- of his having been on the ship.  As well as with regard to his having deserted the Navy, and subsequently been dishonorably discharged.  I'm a bit surprised that you have a bee in a bonnet about this; I think your reaction IMHO is a bit over the top.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The incident is entirely unrelated and it serves no purpose having it mentioned here. Woodson is most likely not notable and it is equally questionable that the incident itself is notable either, hence the AfD. No doubt Woodson enjoyed various other postings during his time in the Navy, and indeed worked in jobs within other organisations with articles on WP. Do you intend to copy this paragraph to the United States Navy article, any training facilities or other vessels he was based at or on, and any other places he has worked at? Of course not, so why have it here? wjemather bigissue 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are basing your comment as to notability as to what you said at the AfD, that was clearly misleading. As discussed there, there has in just the past few days been massive RS coverage, by all manner of RSs, and your insinuation that the coverage is local is flatly wrong.  As to your "unrelated" point, that was addressed above in my first comment, and it would be a waste of both our time for me to repeat why that is an unconvincing point.  Your last point has the odor of a red herring, so I will let it pass untouched.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you simply misread it, but you are misrepresenting what I said at the AfD. In any case, you have yet to explain why the incident is directly related to the subject of this article. wjemather bigissue 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One possibility is that at the AfD you meant to say that there is massive RS coverage in the U.S. and countries other than the U.S., but some countries in the world (including the U.K.) do not have any articles that you were able to find in the first few days after the incident, but that you recognize that that is irrelevant, as wikipedia notability does not require that the U.K. per se have an article on the matter, and especially in the first few days after the incident, and there is coverage across a number of continents, let alone from virtually all the major RSs in the US. I didn't think that was where you were going.  A second possibility is that you were seeking to make a comment relevant to whether the article is sufficiently notable under WP notability standards, as reflected in RS coverage, and by discussing geographical scope of coverage you were seeking to suggest that coverage was insufficient to meet WP's notability requirements.  But that is not true, for the reasons discussed at the AfD, which a google search would have revealed quite quickly, so that can't be what you intended I imagine.  I assume of course that a third possibility, that you were in fact aware of the widespread coverage both through the U.S. and across the globe, as you had searched for UK coverage, but sought to mislead others, is not the case, as only one engaging in bad faith would engage in such behavior, and I know that is not the case with you.  As to the "directly related" discussion, I've already responded.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you have still not really addressed the issue in question. I do not consider "It's standard" to be a valid argument, unless of course you can point to a guideline that supports this claim? wjemather bigissue 23:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * my 2 cents, this isn't any worse than noting that John F Kennedy served on the PT 109 or where George Bush flew his TBM. Seems it should either go in the lead because it is recent news, or at the end of the modern period though. Woodson pretty matches the profile of a number of jihadist people who have planned or executed attacks on US except for confirmation of this religious and political beliefs, which appear to have been covered up by authorities who admit he stated he intended to commit crimes with his small arsenal Bachcell (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that I've stopped laughing, are you seriously saying that Woodson is as notable as two former Presidents? Please put your POV to one side and review the policies and guidelines. Specifically, recent news never automatically goes in the lead, and when it is almost entirely unrelated it should not be in the article. If the article contained a list of people who served on the Orion, I'm still not sure Woodson would warrant a mention. wjemather bigissue 08:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the paragraph again, since the AfD of the relevant article resulted in delete. wjemather bigissue 08:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm .. those are two different standards. The standard for an article to survive an AfD is not the same as the standard for a sentence, properly sourced to an RS, to survive deletion.  That is the only sentence in the entire article that is sourced, and it is sourced to an RS, and can be sourced to many more, and accounts for a high percentage of all mentions of the ship in the last year.  I've restored it.  If you differ, and cannot agree and talk it out, I would suggest that we seek mediation, as you seem to be following me around to various articles to undo my edits and/or nom an article I create for AfD.  This appears less than civil, and if you cannot tolerate the sentence, I urge you to bring this to mediation rather than edit war as you have here and across a number of articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument for inclusion bas based on the notability of the subject or the incident he is involved in. This incident in no way relates to the Orion and you are using it as a coatrack. The quality of the sourcing is irrelevant, as is the fact that the rest of the article is unsourced. Your pov addition of this material is distruptive and you allegations are tiresome. wjemather bigissue 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit-warring against the consensus on this page. The subject need not be notable enough for an article for the sentence, properly sourced to an RS, to be included.  If the requirement were that every sentence needed to be notable enough to build an article on it, much of wikipedia would be deleted.  That's a non-reason.  The consensus on this page is for inclusion.  Please stop edit warring.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What consensus? There certainly is no consensus on this page for your POV additions. The information must be relevent to the subject of the article. This incident is not. You are using this as a WP:COATRACK. Your disregard of core policies and guidelines is not acceptable. wjemather bigissue 10:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Woodson's presence on the vessels warrants no inclusion here. The article is about a ship, not about a guy who had ambitions to kill and deserted to act on them. Woodson's ranks is not eluded to, and unless he was the CO or XO I think it silly to have a mention of the matter here. Inferring from the above comments, he was of insufficient notability to have kept an article on Wikipedia. My suggestion is to relocate the material to its own article (assuming you can find enough material to make an article) on the attempted attack(s) he was planning/planned/did not carry out. Adding the material here is rather irrelevent since it doesn't further the ship's service history. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Trivial incident, certainly not relevant to this article. If he gets charged and convicted of planning a terrorist attack, there would be grounds for an article on him then, but still no reason that I can see why he should be mentioned at this article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The concept that someone who is not notable enough to warrant an article should be mentioned in context in another article is quite a sensible one. The key, though, is that it should be a particularly relevant article; I can't see how a ship he served on twenty-some years earlier during a career he subsequently abandoned is relevant. (To look at it from the other angle - if we were describing this incident in one sentence elsewhere, would he be primarily described as "a former sailor on the USS Orion"?) Shimgray | talk | 18:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Tom, Gatoclass and Shimgray the subject should not be in this article. --Brad (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy to abide by the consensus, finding Shim's reasoning most convincing (consensus aside). I was perhaps in part distracted by the deleter's initial edit summary, to the effect that his rationale for deleting was that the article had not survived the AfD.  Perhaps as suggested by Shim mention is more appropriate in articles that bear greater relevance (timeline wise) to the event.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)