Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George M. Campbell


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

George M. Campbell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and the ship wasn't even completed) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete one tertiary source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Lot of reliable sources. No compliance with WP:Before.  Cf., Articles for deletion/John C. England.  Will easily meet or exceed WP:GNG.  This is just a part of a mass deletion effort in different form.  It was a second deletion nomination, that was part of a proposed mass slaughter.  Wolf in sheep's clothing.  As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is the second nomination for deletion.  See Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen.  The record should be corrected accordingly.Further, if it is not kept, the proposed redirect is a poor fit.  Clearly it would be better to go to Squadron 8, rather than some generic medal burial ground.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 03:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 03:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC) t
 * What are the "Lot of reliable sources"? Just throwing every comment you can think of and pointing to other pages up for deletion which will all be judged on their own merits is absolutely no basis for which this page should be kept. The technicality that this page was part of an earlier proposed mass deletion closed as part of a procedural keep is irrelevant. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See the policies cited on the shortcut to the right. 7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have RS add them in, just saying they exist is unlikely to save this from closing as a redirect. As noted on Article Rescue Squadron Guide to saving articles "The provision of reliable-source references is the best way to save an article.". Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Lettler
 * You said you did WP:Before. Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, why don't you add some more?  And how did you miss the ones I've added already?  If you didn't find them, you need to recall that WP:Competence is required.  If you did find them, we should not be going through this exercise. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect: to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for GNG, BASIC and does not meet ANYBIO or NSOLDIER. REFBOMBING the article when the soruce is not SIGCOV does not make an article notable.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The article went from something so short it could be merged to something quite well developed. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is a reliable source.  This person had a notable award/recognition by having a navy ship named after him.   D r e a m Focus  19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Not the article it was when proposed for deletion. WP:HEY.  WP:Not paper.  Arguendo, if it is not kept, it should be REDIRECT AND MERGED with VA-8 rather than some generic agglutination of Navy Cross winners. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination.  This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles.  See Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen.  The record should be corrected accordingly.  There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
 * This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.
 * This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact.  It is always put into the history.  I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles.  And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions.  Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver star/Ship name honorees for deletion.  It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles.  This is in fact a second nomination (among many).  And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy.  You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
 * Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before.  The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: User:7&amp;6=thirteen (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See shortcut. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Does not meet WP:NSOLDIER, and in no SN is having a ship named after you grounds for automatic notability. The current sourcing does not meet the level necessary to pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up anything more substantial.  He gets mentioned in action reports regarding the battle, but nothing in-depth, unlike George H. Gay Jr., the lone survivor of the action.  I would say merge to the ship's article, however, since the ship was never completed, it does not have one. Personally, I think that all Navy Cross awardees (and their counterparts in the Air Force and Army) should be part of NSOLDIER, but currently, they are not.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 14:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A Redirect to the generic and overpopulated List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II is a disservice in so many ways. If a redirect and MERGE were to happen, it makes sense it should be to VA-8, where his contribution makes sense.  WP:Preserve and WP:Not paper. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes GNG, two sources (Mrazak & Mooney) provide SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Not Delete Either Userfy/Draftify or Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II and Merge with VT-8 (Squadron 8), or Keep, depending on the notability & significance of the ship being named after him, relative to that of a "nation's second-highest award for valour."


 * A single Navy Cross is insufficient for WP:SOLDIER, and as far as WP:ANYBIO, it's hard to say that having an (uncompleted) destroyer escort named after a person (during WW2) qualifies as "a well-known and significant award or honor." If it is sufficient, it should be included on the WP:SOLDIER page.


 * However, I'm wondering how it compares to a "nation's second-highest award for valour." [I.E. Is it more or less of a "well-known and significant award or honor" than a nation's second-highest award for valour?] If it is at-least as well-known and significant as a nation's second-highest award for valour, then perhaps it could be combined with his Navy Cross to qualify as being equivalent to 2 second-highest award for valours, and thus qualify for WP:SOLDIER.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge with VT-8. I agree with Cavalryman that these two sources might make the subject meet GNG. On the other hand, he is really only notable for WP:ONEEVENT and might not qualify for a stand-alone article. Merging seems a good idea to preserve the reliably sourced content. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.