Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry F. Bauer


 * 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 Harry F. Bauer. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Harry F. Bauer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Silver Star. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to USS Harry F. Bauer. Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Silver Star. 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) 03:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer. I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here. The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge (very selectively) to USS Harry F. Bauer per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, 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."  // Timothy :: talk  05:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete a ship named after you is not a signficant honor under the conditions under which this naming actually occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, it's more appropriate to have relevant information (specifically military career and silver star action) about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article contains significant coverage to write an article with per GNG. -- Green  C  21:51, 2 February 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/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.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:29, 30 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 (☎) 12:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, selectively, following 's suggestion. He doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER, or WP:GNG, and contrary to what has been said, having a ship named after you is not part of any SN. Also, unless I missed something in the article, or in the sources, he was not awarded the Navy Cross, but the Silver Star. which is a couple of grades lower than the Navy Cross.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough reference material to fill an article with, so against merging. Having a military ship named after you is a significant award or honor and thus passes WP:ANYBIO.   D r e a m Focus  16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the references are about Bauer though. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about a ship that he served on, and one is focused on a completely different person. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first reference in the article shows ample information about him, and his heroic action that earned him a silver star and got a ship named after him. The fact that it then mentions information about that ship afterwards is not relevant.  He is notable for his actions, and winning a significant award and honor for it.   D r e a m Focus  00:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to USS Harry F. Bauer, insufficient SIGCOV of the individual to meet GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
 * I'm inclined go with selective merge with USS Gregory (DD-82) given that the narrative goes with that ship rather than the destroyer which honored him, but merger to either ship is preferable. It's the same story as with the run of "sailors after whom destroyers were named" articles; I'm also seeing the same problem here as with the Ault article, that almost all the biography is unsourced. It seems to me that the principle ought to be that these sailors and marines are documented in the article either on the ship named after them, or on that of the ship/battle where their notable action occurred. I prefer the latter but in particular I just don't see what we are gaining by, in most of these instances, repeating the same story of their heroism in three different articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am working on adding sources. At AFD, I assume that those who vote will do their own search and see whether sources exist.   This goes for the proposer.  And you are supposed to be looking at sources, whether they are cited in Wikipedia or not.  WP:Notability does not depend on article quality.  As I said, dumping lots of AFDs all at once is just an attempt to get the article axed.  I can't update all these articles that quickly. You could add sources, too.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:28, 31 January 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: This is trendings towards a merge result, but Mangoe brings something overlooked amidst all of these ship namesake AfDs. Bauer is both the namesake of a ship (USS Harry F. Bauer), but was also the commander of another ship (USS Gregory) when he carried out the actions that led to a ship being named after him. This is different from the other AfDs, where the subjects were just serving as aviators/crew. Whether this merits a merge/redirect to the Gregory article instead of the Bauer article is worth discussing further. Also, this is the only AfD in this batch that I've closed in which 7&6=thirteen has explicitly said that they were adding sources to, and given the difference in command level I mentioned earlier, is another reason to relist.
 * Merge into USS Harry F. Bauer, fails GNG, only one reliable source provides SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been expanded and new sources added. Sources contain biographical information about Bauer who was both the captain of one ship and had another ship named for him. Even if you were to merge it is not all clear which ship would get the redirect, and there is enough material to merge that it becomes a WEIGHT issue. A separate article solves all these problems and there is sufficient sourcing for GNG. --  Green  C  17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is still the same in that none of them are actually focused on Bauer himself. Three are in relation to the ship named after him, one is about the Gregory, and one is focused on a completely different person who served on the Gregory. Both the Gregory sources are quick mentions, so I think that the weight of what coverage there is leans more towards USS Harry F. Bauer. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing in GNG says a source must be "focused", that is an invented high bar. Sources contain biographical information which is sufficient to wrote an article with. Sources contain significant coverage, as others here have stated. You are welcome to disagree, it is an opinion, but what is your point, of course you disagree you didn't !vote to Keep. --  Green  C  21:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well it does say coverage needs to be "Direct and in detail", which really only leaves his Silver Star citation and the opening paragraph of the USS Bauer's DANFS entry. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:06, 2 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.