Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold John Ellison


 * 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 with USS Harold J. Ellison (DD-864). While the most preferred target was the cancelled DE-545 destroyer escort, I assume that is a result of the bandwagon effect, and that given the choice, most people would prefer the target to be the destroyer DD-864 since that one was actually built. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Harold John Ellison

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete having a ship named after you in the circumstances Ellison had it occur is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep At least one warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). If a reader wants to know "Who was that ship named after and what did he/she do?" we should tell them, even if they don't merit an independent article. Pam  D  10:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). It's probably more appropriately part of the ship's history than a standalone article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but sourced content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. No objection to merging properly sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  01:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you have the wrong target. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect, merging as necessary, to USS Harold J. Ellison (DD-864)., , , you may wish to change your suggested targets to the completed ship that was his namesake (as USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) should probably be redirected to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort,never having been completed or commissioned). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I'm ok with either, as you note DE-545 was cancelled while DD-864 was built, but given that DE-545 has a page its not unreasonable to redirect there. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: agree with a redirect to DD-864 and a merge for DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort.  // Timothy :: talk  09:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misunderstood the earlier comment, I agree redirect to DD-864 and merge DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort. Mztourist (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep in my view, having the US Navy name a commissioned ship for an individual should confer notability of the subject. Merging into multiple other ship pages just feels sloppy and harder to maintain as we find time/sources to improve a bio article about this person. I agree that more independent sources would be ideal to improving article quality, but this is sometimes difficult given the time period. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 21:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not what that says. You aren't notable from being related to someone, or loosely connected to something.  Having your achievements notable enough to be recognized with a significant award or honor like this is totally different.   D r e a m Focus  06:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that having a military ship named after someone is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO.  D r e a m Focus  06:09, 30 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 'putting old wine into new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
 * 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.
 * The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.
 * 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. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545) No-one above seems to be saying that sufficent sources exist to meet WP:BIO here, so covering this person in the context of the ship is the logical solution. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545), insufficient sources for independent article. Cavalryman (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to USS Harold J. Ellison (DE-545). Only George H. Gay Jr. and John C. Waldron from Torpedo 8 have received sufficient coverage, one for being the sole survivor, the other for commanding. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update. I am now in the process of seeing if there are other Torpedo 8 articles to nominate for deletion; already found Henry R. Kenyon Jr., John P. Gray. I have bundled the rest of the Torpedo 8 articles in one nomination, Kenyon's. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.