Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Newton


 * 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 keep. per WP:HEY Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

John T. Newton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

U.S. Navy Commodore (United States) who commanded USS Missouri (1841) on the first powered crossing of the Atlantic by an American steam warship and presumably was in command when it caught fire and was destroyed. Also commanded the Home Squadron from 1852 to 1855. Page has been unreferenced since 2009 and while there are a few sources I don't believe they amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I think.
 * "commanded Beagle on her maiden voyage to the Caribbean."
 * "was in command of Missouri during her historic crossing of the Atlantic, the first by a steam-power vessel."
 * "commanded the Home Squadron from March 1852 until March 1855."
 * It looks like there were only 88 Union and Confederate navy admirals and probably commodores during the U.S. Civil War. Durindaljb (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment All unreferenced since 2009. Commanding a ship on its maiden voyage is unremarkable. Missouri was supposedly the first crossing by an American steam-powered vessel, but even that is arguable if you read Steamship. He died before the Civil War, so not sure of its relevance. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Reply Well, if he wasn't alive during the period of the actual American Civil War, that would make his rank or promotion even more notable. Technically, the United States didn't have an admiral, 4-star rank, until after the Civil War anyway when Farragut and his brother Porter were promoted to that rank in 1866 and 1870.  He also appears that he may come from a somewhat prominent family also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durindaljb (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * His rank is irrelevant, coverage is what matters, in any event Commodore was only a 1 star rank. Similarly his family is irrelevant because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED so I don't understand why you have gone and added details of his relatives. Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is the rank was more significant in that day. - wolf  16:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. As commodore in command of the Home Squadron he would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not without SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - early USN flag officer with some notable achievements and postings, as indicated by previous "keep" !votes. Certainly the page needs work, but it could be a worthwhile article. - wolf  17:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. I can't verify the information. Alternately, draftify. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  11:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: References added that may have resolved WP:V. The article should be re-evaluated.
 * Delete per WP:V....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: added some refs. Page still needs work though. - wolf  01:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 10:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment refs added still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the only two "delete" !votes above specifically mentioned WP:V as their reason, which has since been addressed. Not every WP page will have a multitude of readily accessible web-articles that can be easily attached as refs, as demanded by some with a strict exclusionist interpretation of sigcov & gng. (imo) - wolf  16:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV in multiple RS is the basic requirement for any subject and this page doesn't have that.Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've made your opinion on this abundantly and repeatedly known. - wolf 16:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Commodore was, as noted above, a more prestigious rank then than it is now, and the Navy was much smaller. I'm adding more material as I find it. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment; with the good work of and  adding significant content and sourcing, this article is now 6 times larger than when this nom was posted. (fyi) -  wolf  16:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - on the grounds that "significant coverage" is not achieved. While individual bits of information in the article are sourced, none of the references are actually (for want of a better word) about Newton. Looking at the refs given, we have his named listed in a gazette here, his signature at the bottom of reports like any other officer at the same time. The mention of memorial and funeral is the nearest having some actual paragraphs written about the man, everything else is more like footprints in the historical record GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: yet more content and sourcing added after this latest !vote. Article is being actively expanded and improved at a fairly steady pace. (fyi) - wolf  22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * More like an attempt at Keep by a thousand cuts; lots of little bits from primary sources. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that additions had been made for the reviewing/closing admin, not to dispute your !vote. Cheers - wolf  23:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. It may be a keep by a thousand cuts, but the many cuts to be found indicate the significance of the subject. BD2412  T 04:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I have added reference to substantial coverage of the subject's death in the Washington Evening Star.  BD2412  T 05:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: there have been more additions added to the page (thanks ). When the nom was filed, this was a 1kb stub with no refs. But the page is now over 10kb with almost 2 dozen refs. Still perhaps more to come. (fyi) - wolf  05:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you going to give a running commentary on each new addition? Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of my comment was to note the substantial development of the article since nomination. Not sure what the purpose of yours was, nor am I interested to know. - wolf  18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The purpose of my comment is that you are WP:BLUDGEONing with your repeated comments. To quote you: "Regardless of who-posts-what, after reading your first comment, the closing admin will still evaluate each and every other !vote based on their own merits - or at least they should." Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding notice of additional content/sourcing is called an update. What you're doing in badgering (part of the bludgeoning guideline). I will ask again that you please stop. Thank you - wolf  03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you regard yourself as free to comment while others are not and I would ask you to stop. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Both of you stop. Admins aren't blind. We can see whether an article has been substantially improved over the duration of a discussion. It does not need to be pointed out more than once, at the end. BD2412  T 04:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that is a bit excessive, but it is generally reasonable to note the substantial development in the article since the nomination. I think the WP:GNG is reasonably well-met at this point. The subject's death was reported (that I have found without excessive effort) in some detail in three newspapers, in two cities; the Washington Evening Star report was substantial, and noted funeral details signifying an important career (particularly that various branches were ordered to attend).  BD2412  T 15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and thanks again BD2412 and others who contributed. -  wolf  18:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY Nangears (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is vastly improved and better sourced since nomination. For my part I'm looking at newspapers.com for 1857. I see the subject's obituary is widely reprinted. Scores of newspapers reported or commented on the death within a week or two. From a preliminary search I estimate hundreds of newspaper mentions (most mere mentions) of the subject in the years before his death (including a false report of his death in 1853, also reprinted). Subject was clearly newsworthy in his day. Navy list of 1854 confirms subject's command of home fleet . Nominator is correct that we can no longer presume significant coverage because of subject's rank and station; the article needed RS and now has that in abundance. Lots of expansion possible. BusterD (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2021 (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.