Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Benda (naval officer) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

John Benda (naval officer)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Reads more like a puff piece as well Gbawden (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep easily passes notability requir7ements, based on substantial coverage in multiple WP:RS. Very presentable article too, I was fairly confused as to why it has been nominated. Elizium23 (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a recreation of an article deleted in November 2019. The 2019 access dates on the sources lead me to believe that it's a copy-and-paste of that article, with just two new sources added - which meets the "substantially identical" criterion for speedy deletion under Db-repost. (Note that of the two sources with a 2020 access date, one is used entirely in places where another citation is present, while the other supports only a single phrase.) The majority of the sources are trivial mentions or routine coverage; most of the article is based on a single "local boy makes good" piece from his small hometown paper. As per the nomination, this fails WP:SOLDIER. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As the author of both, I can tell you that it is substantially the same. There are several new citations, and he is now the commanding officer, not second in command. I thought that would be enough. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I said before. Doesn't hold flag rank. Not particularly significant otherwise. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Should not have been recreated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't at all pass notability requirements; there's precisely ONE reliable source supporting notability here. Far from being a "very presentable article," this is a classic example of citation bombing: the aforementioned small hometown weekly is cited thirty nine times, the local community access cable channel is cited fourteen times, and other multiple cites include his college alumni quarterly, the hometown men's club, his small college newspaper, and so on.  For pity's sake, there are nearly twice as many cites as sentences in the article! Beyond that, an important factor in biographical articles is being overlooked: that reliable sources must provide significant coverage of the subject.  Fluff pieces in supermarket weeklies where Commander Benda tells elementary school classrooms about the life of Napoleonic Era sailors do not tell us anything about Benda, and therefore do not meet the requirements of the GNG.   Ravenswing      12:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand your opinion, but respectfully disagree. I don't find anything in WP:RS that says local news media are not reliable sources. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is not, but you can't both be unaware of consensus and common sense which holds that small town weekly papers are a world of difference from internationally renowned, Pulitzer Prize-winning outlets like the Boston Globe.   Ravenswing     23:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Please read Articles for deletion/John Benda (naval officer) which resulted in delete. Because it's gone, I can't see the original article but it looks like a copy to me.-- Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was pretty much identical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing has changed since the article was deleted in November. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , He is now the commanding officer, not the second in command. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I understand your reasoning the Constitution, while it has certainly played an immensely important role in American naval history, is not a particularly significant command when you look at the current structure of the US Navy. Best GPL93 (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand where you are coming from, and it is true that the Constitution is not going to be out defending Boston Harbor if it is ever invaded. That doesn't mean it isn't a significant command, however. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I am becoming suspicious of the attempt to turn this into Dedhamapedia. There have been attempts to somehow make Dedham town clerks default notable, there have been category bombing with the Dedham Society to Prevent horsethivery and trying to connected notable people to it who never even set foot in Dedham. While maybe not quite as bad as the mess we have in Louisiana local politician articles or the mess we have in overcoverage of every mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, this is one of the particularly American overcoverge danger zones. The fact that this article is being recreated with such blateant disregard for the decision to delete it is also troubling. We may have more coverage of Dedham than Middle-earth, and conisdering how long the article on Barahir existed that is saying something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For example why do we have 4, yes 4, seperate articles on the history of Dedham? History of Boston is just one article. I do not know how this absurdity has developed, but it is absurd. Then there is History of Salt Lake City which begins its "today" section with an event 18 years ago and refers to a "recently" a purchase that was made in 2003, that is 17 years ago. Actually, on further review I was wrong. History of Dedham, Massachusetts is broken up into 6 arrticles. What is this madness? Why is this absurdity? Why do we have History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film when we lack similar articles on New York City and San Francisco, the two most common specific city locations for US set films? What is this madness and why has it come into existence?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not overreacting on Dedham either. This article (at least as a recreation) was created by the same editor who gave us the classic History of Dedham, Massachusetts, in television and film. He also was connected with creating a category for actors from Dedham, a place of 25,000 people in the metro Boston area. He is responsible for much of our glut of Dedham articles. Examples of past articles include Enos Foord, Andrew G. Geishecker. I have to wonder if some other discussions might be better enlightened if we considered what this absurd level of Dedhamite coverage actually gives us.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - I contend that local news sources count as WP:RS and there is a significant number of them. Since this article was recreated several new sources have been added, including from the Boston Globe and Boston's Fox TV and NBC affiliates, one of which called him the "face of the US Navy in Boston." --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because things seem to have changed since the AFD and WP:GNG seems to be met (again, WP:ROUTINE don't work on people). That said, 's concerns about that someone has tried to turn Wikipedia into Dedhampedia in another Dedham AFD is worthy of WP:ANI intervention. ミラP 02:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed whatsoever. Still a relatively junior officer. Still below flag rank. Still not holding any sort of major command (essentially "commands" a museum ship, whatever its significance in USN history). Still sourced only to local articles about a local boy made good. These are just not significant enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, silly me, I took Slugger O&#39;Toole's comment above to mean that the article's sourcing had been materially improved in the last day. Which it has not, no substantive edits having been made at all.  The article continues to be overwhelmingly sourced by small town weeklies such as the Dedham Times and the Ellsworth American (pop. 7,741), the subject's college alumni quarterly, his hometown community cable access channel, and primary sources which cannot count towards notability like Navy base newspapers and the Constitutions website.   Ravenswing  '    18:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Subject doesn't seem to pass notability requirements. The only source that may meet the requirements is the Boston Globe article on February 29, 2020. The remainder of the references are brief mentions or minor coverage in small local news sources.  WP:GNG also mentions that minor news stories may not actually support notability despite their existence as reliable sources. IMO most of the local news coverage is nothing more than minor news stories. The consensus at many AFD’s is local coverage is not enough to establish notability.   I can’t think of one BLP that has survived a recent AFD where the majority of references are local news sources without at least a few non-local sources included that meet WP:BASIC. Another concern is the subject fails WP:SOLDIER. Being the current  commanding officer of the USS Constitution is not a “Major Command” in the United States Navy.   CBS 527 Talk 18:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - This subject certainly has an important command as it regards US Navy public relations. Based on the coverage I'm seeing during a reasonable search he seems to be an excellent representative of his service branch and of his local community, well-suited for his command. He certainly exists and is verifiable. However, there's no passing GNG here. There's insufficient RS upon which to build a BLP. Failing SNG SOLDIER, there's no presumption of notability. Even the reliable sources which are found appear to be routine local coverage. For now there's very little directly detailing the subject. I would encourage the page creator to draftify this material for now, continue watching and return the page to mainspace ONLY after getting some significant non-local RS if such eventually appear. BusterD (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:ONEEVENT given that Commander Benda's only claim to fame is from his current job commanding a museum ship Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2020 (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.