Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward W. Gosselin


 * 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 Gosselin (APD-126). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Edward W. Gosselin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Maybe worthy of a small mention at USS Gosselin but does not warrant a whole article. -- Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This was speedy deleted as A7, but I undeleted it, because the article's derived from Gosselin's appearance in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. People with biographies in definitive reference works shouldn't have their biographies speedy-deleted for lack of importance.  Nyttend (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: tragedy but not notable per se. Quis separabit?  16:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quis separabit? : Will the purple heart award change any thing here? Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the Purple Heart article: The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after April 5, 1917, has been wounded or killed. It definitely doesn't change anything. I'm leaning toward keeping, but solely because the Navy historians deemed him worthy of inclusion in what's functionally a naval encyclopedia (why should we tell the professional historians that he doesn't belong in an encyclopedia?), not because of the Purple Heart or because he was a ship's namesake. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Purple Heart is kind of a big deal. Why wouldn't the article creator include it from the start? Quis separabit?  19:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Literally everyone wounded or killed in US military service is awarded the Purple Heart. It's a big deal as far as a sense of honor, but not at all a big deal as far as passing WP:BIO.  Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about WP:SOLDIER #1 &/or #2 ? Mhhossein (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How on earth does the Purple Heart meet that? It isn't even a gallantry decoration at all, let alone the highest gallantry decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related depassing ca1000| 1000   23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to USS Gosselin. Many people killed at Pearl Harbor had small ships named after them - it doesn't make them notable. As for the Purple Heart, it's just a wound badge. It's awarded to anyone who's been wounded or killed. Is every wounded or killed American serviceman worthy of an article? No, of course they're not. That would be ludicrous, especially as many countries don't even award wound badges at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - the nominator's rationale seems malformed in that I have no idea how a subject can "fail" WP:SOLDIER (which of cse isn't a rule and is inclusive not exclusive), regardless I cannot see that this poor bloke has enough coverage to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Consensus seems to be that DANFS isn't enough (although I've been the dissenting opinion on that one before). Merge to the article on the ship that was named in his honour. Anotherclown (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge as has been suggested. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: probably the best solution here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.