Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Poroo


 * 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. No consensus to delete at this time, but consensus to merge to USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125) after that article is created.  Sandstein  09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Poroo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The reference does not support the claim (While the blog is the official blog of the Coast Guard there are two comments claiming the information is incorrect). Additionally, the subject does not meet WP:GNG nor the Military Wikiproject's suggestions for notability (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People). The ship it self may warrant a standalone article however that ship is not even finished yet. CommotioCerebri (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Being recognized by your peers is a notability factor. The US Coast Guard agreed to an initiative from Skip Bowen, who was then its most senior enlisted member, to name all 58 cutters in its new Sentinel class after heroic enlisted Coast Guard sailors, or heroic members of its precursor services.  Experienced respected individuals met and agreed on which heros were most deserving of recommendation.  This is a strong notability factor.  Note: The first sentence of CC's nomination seems to me to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's deletion policy.  Nominator SEEMS to be calling for this article's deletion simply because they believe the article contains an unspecified inaccuracy.   Of course when a topic measures up to our inclusion standards, a nominator's concern with the article's accuracy are not grounds for deletion.  Articles on notable topics that are genuinely inaccurate are supposed to be brought up to date, or otherwise corrected, or, at least, marked for update or correction.  Geo Swan (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge into new article No indications from the sources that this person is independently notable, and the suggested criteria at WP:SOLDIER are also not met. The usual way of treating instances where an otherwise non-notable person has a ship named after them is to cover them as part of the article on the ship, which I'd suggest is the solution here. As the ship appears to have been completed and will soon commission, it clearly justifies an article. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * When a ship has human namesake, the reason they were chosen is highly significant. Most ships don't have a human namesake.  Some civilian shipping firms do have a tradition to name some or all of their tugboats or freighters after family members, and those family members usually don't have significant notability.   When an individual is chosen to be the namesake for vessel built for a public institution, like a Navy, a Coast Guard, a Fire Department, an Environmental or Fishery Ministry, that choice itself conveys considerable notability.   Some of our special purpose notability guidelines explicitly recognize peer recognition as proof of notability in that field.  WP:ACADEMIC, for instance, says that when an academic has an issue of a Journal, or a book, or a conference, where each paper is about their work, or follow-ons to their work, this establishes tha individual's notability.  We respect that the experts in a field know who should really be considered notable in that field.  When it comes to Coast Guard work, the committee process where senior respected Coast Guardmen, and respected outsiders, picked men and women they thought merited recognition is that peer review.  I suggest it establishes their notability.   It could be argued that to discount the expert opinion of experienced Coast Guardmen, to argue that they don't know who are those who are notable, in their own field, is editorializing, and a lapse from compliance with the policies that remind us that we are not experts in the fields we cover, that we rely on the opinions of actual experts in those fields.  Let's not second guess them.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge: per Nick, the individual doesn't appear to be independently notable from the ship, but is IMO a valid search term. As such, it would be best to create an article on the ship, and then use the individual's name as a redirect to the ship, where details of the namesake could be included. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, in response to the query below, for me if significant coverage exists that covers all aspects of the subject's life, it would probably be a keep. At this stage, though, the article doesn't demonstrate this as key details such as date of birth, and the subject's early life and full service details are not covered. What is there appears to be focused on the incident that led to the award, and then the naming of the ship. The award alone doesn't confer notability, IMO, as it is a relatively low grade (equivalent of the Soldier's Medal or Airman's Medal) in terms of military decorations. As such, in its current form, the subject's notability is primarily in the context of the ship, so it seems like a topic easily covered on the same page as the vessel with a redirect being a good way to ensure readers find what they are looking for. Nevertheless, if multiple reliable sources exist that cover the Poroo in a manner that enables a full biography to be written, I feel it could be kept as a stand alone article. I note, that this very situation has also occurred in relation to some Navy Cross recipients whose name was memorialized with a ship. The treatment for these hasn't always been consistent, for instance Sam Davis Presley (redirect), and Rogers Blood (currently stand alone article), so I suspect there is a wide variance of opinions in this field. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coast Guard Medal in peacetime possibly is highest possible. Having a ship named after you is an indication of notability - and will generate coverage of the namesake regardless.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Question... for and  ...  If I understand you, you both asserted Jacob Poroo doesn't currently measure up to our inclusion criteria.  The cutter named after him is the 25th such vessel.  Generally, when these cutters are commissioned, or when they arrive at their home port, newspapers publish profiles of the namesakes.   If one of more newspapers in Florida, or Louisiana, or elsewhere, publish a celebration of his life, which includes interviews with his relatives, or other people who knew him, would you agree our inclusion criteria are met?  What if those profile(s) contain new details, because those reporters did a better job of searching for records about Poroo?  What if those profiles only paraphrase the references we have already found?  Does additional coverage of the details we already know establish notabilty?   I continue to believe that experts in Poroo's field recommending recognizing his heroism by naming a $50 million vessel after them, is a strong peer recognition, and thus a strong notability factor.  But, if the consensus is that Poroo is not currently notable I think it would be highly useful if you went on record as to what, in addition, you think would establish his notability, to your satisfaction.   Geo Swan (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In 2014, when the article on Richard Dixon (USCG), the namesake for the 13th cutter, was nominated for deletion, I checked all the articles on USCG cutters. At that time I found only one cutter named after an individual, where the namesake did not have a standalone article -- the USCGC Midgett (WHEC-726).  I considered than an oversight, which I corrected, by starting John Allen Midgett Jr..  Geo Swan (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to quote part of insightful comment from Articles for deletion/Richard Dixon (USCG), which I think is equally applicable here:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Let's be realistic here, en.wp's perceptions of who is "notable" are at best second-or-third-hand, inherited from what other bodies (governments, media, the Oscars, medieval scribes choosing the winners of history) thought was notable. Perhaps the USCG may be a better judge of notability of coastguards than a group of people with coffees-stained keyboards (i.e. you and me). If the USCG internal process for USCG:NOTABLE leads them to throw a boat at Bernard C. Webber, Richard Etheridge, William Flores, Robert Yered, Margaret Norvell, Paul Clark, Charles David, Charles Sexton, Kathleen Moore, Joseph Napier, William Trump, Isaac Mayo, Richard Dixon, Heriberto Hernandez then they can establish (expensively) notability just as surely as Simon Cowell.
 * Let's be realistic here, en.wp's perceptions of who is "notable" are at best second-or-third-hand, inherited from what other bodies (governments, media, the Oscars, medieval scribes choosing the winners of history) thought was notable. Perhaps the USCG may be a better judge of notability of coastguards than a group of people with coffees-stained keyboards (i.e. you and me). If the USCG internal process for USCG:NOTABLE leads them to throw a boat at Bernard C. Webber, Richard Etheridge, William Flores, Robert Yered, Margaret Norvell, Paul Clark, Charles David, Charles Sexton, Kathleen Moore, Joseph Napier, William Trump, Isaac Mayo, Richard Dixon, Heriberto Hernandez then they can establish (expensively) notability just as surely as Simon Cowell.


 * }
 * Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As you should know very well from countless AfDs and ANI discussions of biographies you've created, notability is determined by the criteria at WP:BIO. Not some other subjective measure of how important you reckon someone is. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification please . You point to WP:BIO.  You seem to be asserting your delete, in this AFD, is a reflection of BIO.  But doesn't BIO's subsection WP:ANYBIO say: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor..."  So, is it your position that when the US Coast Guard honors Poroo's heroism by naming a $50,000,000 cutter after him, this is not a "significant award or honor"?  If that IS your position, perhaps you could explain WHY honoring someone by naming a $50,000,000 vessel after them is not a "significant honor".  Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day, definitely it is an honour and certainly noteworthy (i.e. could be mentioned on the encyclopedia), IMO, but it isn't necessarily something that should equate to a stand alone article of itself. That said, if coverage in the article could be expanded to illustrate all aspects of the subject's life, it would be a keep for me per WP:GNG. But coverage isn't demonstrated yet, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , you are not the only contributor I've seen who has argued BLP should be deleted when they don't cover the mundane milestones of a life. Earlier this year, in Articles for deletion/Stephen Vladeck, DGG, one of our most respected contributors, said, in part: "Of course biographic detail is nice, but unnecessary--a notable person is notable because of the work they do, not by virtue of being born. Even under the GNG do not need in depth coverage of the person's personal life, just of the aspects of his life that bring forth notability."  I'd be very interested in what you think after considering the suggestion that the notable people we cover are notable for what RS wrote about what they did or said, or the impact of what they did or said -- not who they married, or where they were born, where they went to school.   Consider the spouses of celebrities, or spouses of members of the UK Royal Family, or the extended Kennedy clan.  These are individuals for whom we do know all the mundane milestones, but, most of the time, we don't start articles on spouses, children, parents.  The exceptions, where we start and keep a BLP who is related to someone who is more notable than they are, have nevertheless had enough coverage in RS, of notable things they themselves did or said, or the impact of what they did or said.  I point this out as further establish that it is not the mundane milestones that make an individual measure up to our inclusion criteria.  It is the notable coverage of what they did or said, or the impact thereof.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment You ask " WHY honoring someone by naming a $50,000,000 vessel after them is not a "significant honor"". Another way of looking at this would be that a branch of a country's armed forces named 58 pieces of equipment after 58 members of that branch, basically self-promotion contrary to WP:SPIP. We need third-party demonstration of notability. Also the monetary value is irrelevant - if the subjected had enlisted in a poorer nation would they have been less notable? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I stand by the other comments. When you get a multi-million dollar vessel named after you, a medal etc. that makes you notable. Genuinely encyclopaedicly notable. More notable than a cricketer who played one match for Warwickshire in 1911, or someone with x-zillion Youtube likes. The sources from 1960s obviously exist, but are on microfilm in libraries not online. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete There isn't significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. The article only talks about his death, there is nothing about him as a person, presumably because no sources can be found which discuss him in detail. To test this, consider that the contents of this article could belong equally well in an article about the ship named after him USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125).--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify I'm not asking for intimate details of his private life, but a biography or other profile published by someone other than his employer would be nice.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete there is no significant coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Considering the fact that there is a ship named after this person, they are almost certain to exist. Plus, they have a page on a high-quality source like Military Times. Although there could be more, I'm pretty sure that we can verify the article's claims. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録  19:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect - where is the WP:SIGCOV? Subject seems to fail WP:GNG and all the other arguments here attempting to rationalise why it should be considered notable anyway given the subject's worthiness (which is not in question) don't seem to hold any basis in policy. Anotherclown (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge into the ship article after the ship has been commissioned; otherwise, not seeing notability enough for separate article. Kierzek (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment/question - would anyone be opposed to redirecting this to Sentinel-class cutter and then merging from article history and retargeting once USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125) is created? ansh 666 07:19, 7 October 2017 (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.