Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821-1863)


 * 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, almost bordering on "keep". There is clearly source material here, although I recognize the argument that the sources are so comprehensive in covering officers of fairly low rank that would otherwise not be considered notable. Nonetheless, there is no way that I can see anything approaching a consensus to delete here, and since there is independent sourcing I see no policy based reason to override that either. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821-1863)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has recently been deleted at afd and discussed at DRV. The DRV is at Deletion_review/Log/2015_November_30 and the AFD is at Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Mayhew_Wainwright_(1821–1863). Basically the sources are turn of the last centuary and this seems something of a walled garden of barely worthwhile standalone articles about a family that might be better as an article about the family.

This was userfied after the DRV and immediatelt restored so some kind of discussion is required. I would suggest merge to an article on Wainright Family Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  The book notes on page 301: "Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer, was born in New York city, July 27, 1821; son of the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Mayhew (q.v.) and Amelia Maria (Phelps) Wainwright. He entered the U.S. navy in 1841; became passed midshipman in 1843; was commissioned lieutenant in 1850; lieutenant-commander, 1861. He was lieutenant-commander on board the Harriet Lane, flagship of Commodore David D. Porter in the passage of the forts on the Mississipi, and he received the surrender of Commander Mitchell of the Confederate steamer Mississippi, and refused that officer the terms granted the officers of the fort on the ground that he had violated the flag of truce by firing the Mississipppi while the terms of capitulation were being arranged. He commanded the Harriet Lane in the gulf operations of 1862-63; and took possession of Galveston Bay in October, 1862. In the battle of Jan. 1, 1863, the Harriet Lane bore the brunt of the attack, and when the crew of the Confederate steamer Bayou City ran alongside and opened a musketry fire from behind a breastwork of cotton bales, Commander Wainwright was killed and his first lieutenant, Lea, mortally wounded. His son, Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright of the U.S. Naval academy, class of 1867, master on board the Mohican, San Blas, Mexico, died from wounds received in action with pirates, June 19, 1870; another son, Capt. Robert Powel Page Wainwright, of the 1st U.S. cavalry, was commended by Gen. Joseph Wheeler for good conduct at the battle of La Quasina, Cuba, 1808; and his daughter, Marie, became a prominent actress. Commander Wainwright's death occurred Jan. 1, 1863."  The cover page says: "Being the History of the United States Illustrated in the lives of the founders, builders, and defenders of the Republic, and of the men and women who are doing the work and moulding the thought of the present time. Edited by Distinguished biographers, selected from each state  Revised and approved by the most eminent historians, scholars, and statesmen of the day  Volume IV. New York James T. White & Company  1895" The book notes on page 359: "Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer was born in New York July 27, 1821; son of Bishop Wainwright of the P. E. church. He entered the navy in 1827, became a passed midshipman in 1843, and a lieutenant in 1850, and in the civil war was engaged as commander of the Harriet Lane in the taking of New Orleans, Vicksburg and Galveston. Jan. 1, 1863, his vessel was attacked and captured by Confederates under Gen. Magruler, near Galveston, and he himself was killed in the fight."  The book notes on page 441: "Commander Jonathan M. Wainwright, U.S.N. (deceased). Commander Jonathan Matthew Wainwright was born in the city of New York in July, 1821, and was killed in battle at Galveston Bay on January 1, 1863. He was a son of the well-known prelate of the same name, so long the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of New York. Commander Wainwright entered the navy as a midshipman in June, 1837, and performed the usual sea-duty of his grade until, in 1842, he was ordered to the Naval School, then at Philadelphia. He became a passed midshipman in 1843, in 1849 an acting master, and was commissioned as lieutenant in September, 1850. His service in the 'Lexington,' 'San Jacinto,' 'Saratoga,' 'Dolphin,' and other vessels did not differ from that of most junior lieutenants. Never very robust, he managed always to do his duty well, and was a great favorite with his messmates and shipmates on account of his pleasant manners and officer-like conduct. The outbreak of the Civil War found him engaged in special duty at Washington. He was ordered to the command of the 'Harriet Lane,' the well-known revenue streamer which had been transferred to the navy. She became the flag-ship of Commander (afterwards Admiral) Porter, of the Mortar Flotilla, during the operations against Vicksburg. In October, 1862, the 'Harriet Lane' took part in the capture of Galveston as a part of Commander Renshaw's little squadron. Their tenure was not long, for on New Year's Day, 1863, the small squadron, some of which were ashore at low tide, was attacked by a Confederate force, which soon resumed control of the town and the bay. General Magruder had, for the water attack, fitted out three-steamers with cotton-bale defences and placed on board as many rifleman as could find room to act. They came down the bay at four A.M., and, as the 'Harriet Lane' was the highest up, she was first attacked. Boarded by these vessels, swarming with sharp-shooters, the decks were swept by a shower of balls. Wainwright fell almost immediately, at the head of his men, endeavoring to repel boarders. The executive officer, Lea, was mortally wounded, and the next officer severely so. Half of those on deck were shot down, and in ten minutes the vessel was in the enemy's possession. A curious incident of the fight was, that young Lea's father was an officer on the Confederate side, and found his son in a dying condition after possession was taken. To complete the tragedy, Commander Renshaw, of the 'Westfield,' and the senior officer present was summoned to surrender under favorable conditions, which he might have done, as his vessel was unmanageable from the state of water at that time. This he refused, sending most of his crew on board an army transport which was afloat and remaining, with a few people, to destroy the 'Westfield.' Unfortunately the flames spread so fast that she blew up just as they got into the boat, and Renshaw, his first lieutenant, Zimmerman, Chief Engineer Green, and about a dozen men, lost their lives. Commander Wainwright had a son, also named Jonathan Mayhew, who was appointed a midshipman the year his father was killed, and who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1867. This young officer also lost his life by rifle-shot only three years after graduation. He had attained the rank of master, and was attached to the Pacific Squadron. In command of a boat expedition against the piratical steamer 'Forward,' in the lagoon at San Blas, he was shot in leading the boarders at her capture, and died the next day. The attack was successful, and the vessel was captured and burnt." 
 * Keep The sources are old because this is history now. But notability does not expire because we are an encyclopedia with a historical perspective, not a news source focussing on recent events.  See WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."  Andrew D. (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep once notable always notable, no valid reason for deletion. Entries in three encyclopedias. This is also the wrong venue, your suggestion is to merge, which is handled at the article talk page by consensus. This is articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting that since this has been moved since the last discussions, this won't come up on anyone's watch list if they were using that to identify if this was under discussion. Therefore pinging the AFD contributors. ; ; ; ; ; ; . I have noted this listing at the DRV discussion, which is the traditional way of advising those participants. Spartaz Humbug! 10:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He came from a very distinguished military family, but he himself did not reach a high rank, perform any noteworthy feat or receive a single decoration. The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography has three sentences about him. He receives one page in Officers of the Army and the Navy (regular) who Served in the Civil War, but so do Musical Director John Y. Taylor, Commander Silas Wright Terry and a whole slew of others who don't merit articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing has changed from when this was deleted last month. Fails SOLDIER. J bh  Talk  10:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful to the ship article. Not notable in a military sense, and appears to not meet WP:GNG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per source provided by at DRV Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863).

These all give him significant coverage not one to two sentence for a historical figure prior to the turn of the 20th century where fewer sources exist. Valoem  talk   contrib  13:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the latter dictionary appears to be a list of all regular officers who served in the ACW, are we to take it that you think every regular officer who served in the ACW is notable just because they appear in it? That's basically saying they're notable for being a United States military officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, he had a ship (at least partly) named for him over 100 years after his death, USS Wainwright (CG-28). Had he not been notable, they could have easily just said the ship was named after the Wainwright family or the ship was named to honor for the prior ships that were named USS Wainwright. Non trivial mention in a book published ~40 years after his death, "The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans". He needs to be mentioned in all three ship articles, so it is best to do that with a link to his own article rather than a paragraph in each article. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- In UK, anyone in the 40 or more volumes of Dictionary of National Biography is regarded as notable. His appearance in American equivalents leads me to regard him as notable.  I would also suggest that in choosing his name for a ship, the US Navy did so.  That of course does not mean that other military officers in the family should get inherited notability.  The present article is quite short and has some redlinks: they probably need de-linking.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No biographical dictionary he has appeared in comes close to the status of the DNB! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments at Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30 and the sources Valoem quoted above. The subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable on the basis of the ship named after him and the sources provided by Cunard and Valoem. clpo13(talk) 20:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, without prejudice to merge to a Wainwright family article about the four generations of U.S. Navy officers of the same name. While I believe that the subject officer satisfies the minimum criteria of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, given the brevity of available content about the subject, he may be better covered in the context of a combined article about him and his navy namesakes.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont see anything notable, joined the navy, had a family and was killed in action, one of many with nothing to distinguish him from others. MilborneOne (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. As before. Junior officer killed in action, just like hundreds of thousands of others. No especial notability. He didn't have a ship named after him; his family did, as one that had produced several military officers. That doesn't make every member of the family notable. And in any case, we have held a number of times that having an American ship named after one does not automatically make one notable. There's lots of people with USN ships named after them that aren't notable at all according to our guidelines. This has already been deleted at AfD and that closure endorsed at DRV; are we to take a leaf out of the EU's book and continue having votes until we get the result that certain individuals want? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided that show the subject meets the requirements of the GNG. That is our definition of notable here. Hobit (talk) 10:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what sources you're talking about, but I don't see them. A few passing mentions and brief bios in an old biographical dictionary and a list of all regular officers who served in the Civil War, that's all. We've rejected many individuals with far more coverage as not being notable. Just a bloke who was killed in action and was a member of a family that produced several officers. Fails pretty much every notability standard we have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I'll claim you were wrong before. We have enough information from reliable sources to write an article.  That's all we need.  Wikipedia's level isn't "did something cool enough" it's "reliable sources have written about them".  If there is enough for an article (and the above quotes clearly are) it's enough to _have_ the article per WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 04:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that every single American and British serviceman killed or decorated in Iraq and Afghanistan has reams of reliable stuff written about them. I can't believe you are saying that this is enough for an article no matter what their notability, but that is what you seem to be saying. If you are saying that, then no, we've held over and over again that having a lot written about you doesn't necessarily equate to notability. To say otherwise would be to utterly fly in the face of long consensus and turn us from an encyclopaedia into a memorial for the recently dead. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Necro, you've been around far too long and you're far too experienced not to recognize that you are confusing perceived importance with the Wikipedia concept of notability per WP:N. They are two entirely different concepts.  If there are "reams of reliable stuff written about" . . . "American and British serviceman killed or decorated in Iraq and Afghanistan," then they are notable per WP:GNG.  I know you already know this.  That said, notability is a prerequisite, but not a guarantee that a particular subject may have a stand-alone Wikipedia article.  If you are saying that this subject would be better covered as part of a list of notable Civil War officers or Civil War KIAs, or a merged article about the Jonathan Wainwright U.S. Navy namesakes, I don't disagree, and Hobit and I have already said as much.  If that's what you want, I'm happy to change my vote to "merge" now.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am confusing nothing. You, I'm afraid, seem to be confusing Wikipedia with something which is bound by strict rules as opposed to consensus. And consensus is that people are not just notable (in a Wikipedia sense or any other sense) because they've been written about on websites or in books, whatever GNG may say. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the many deletions at AfD of American military personnel who just happen to have got themselves killed. Neither would we have had deletions at AfD of people who appeared in Who's Who (the genuine British one, not the self-promoting knock-offs). Yet we have done. Reliable sources so they must be notable, right? Clearly wrong. They need to be obviously notable as well. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:GNG again: significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources = notable. We can argue about what each of those elements means, and we can argue about the "encyclopedic" topicality of a subject and whether it merits a stand-alone article, but the battle you're trying to fight was resolved in favor of significant coverage (not perceived importance) long ago.  And, no, it's not enough that there merely be "reliable sources" to establish notability; those reliable sources must include significant coverage of the subject to establish notability, which far too many AfD participants seem to believe means a sentence or three in a newspaper article or other larger work.  We may also discount some coverage per WP:ROUTINE.
 * BTW, the Powell & Shippen book you dismiss as a "directory" of all regular U.S. Army and U.S. Navy officers is not what you describe; the book includes biographical sketches of roughly 480 army and navy officers, and there were about 1,080 regular officers (full peace-time commissions, not war-time brevets and commissions, etc.) in the U.S. Army alone in 1860, with several hundred more active-duty regular officers in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Moreover, the ranks of "regular army" officers who served from 1861 to 1865 were swelled by the 900 or so West Point and Annapolis graduates and officers who were in civilian life in 1860 (including such notables as U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman who returned to active duty).  So, Powell & Shippen were clearly selective in choosing the 450 or so regular army and navy officers based on some criteria of their noteworthiness; it clearly did not include all regular army and navy officers, who would have exceeded 2,000 with war-time academy graduates.  And these numbers apparently do not include the war-time officers of the "Volunteer Army," who would have numbered several thousands more.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp Sorry did not want to comment until the AfD was over but I must because I believe you viewpoint is very flawed. What you are saying is Wikipedia is not bound by policy, yet we have policy overriding consensus all the time because Wikipedia is bound by policy. If reliable sources do not define notability than what does? If these sources are discounted then it becomes purely I like it or I don't like it. WP:ROUTINE is define by whether the coverage is routine or not, not the event itself. While yes this person does not appear to have amazing accomplishments, the coverage he received is unusual. Much like a cat being stuck in a tree covered in local news is routine, but a cat stuck in a tree covered by national news is not routine. This is the very definition of a cultural phenomena know as a meme. Memes generally appear very routine, but for unexplained reasons rises above the rest. Social construct is define by this nature and our goal is to document it throughout time. I am not saying this is a meme, but documenting the unusual coverage this solider received embodies his notability. This is the fundamental principle of GNG. Valoem   talk   contrib  07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What you said above is mostly right, but dangerously misleading by virtue of what you omit: yes, notability is defined by coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, but that coverage must be significant. Coverage that does not rise the level of being significant -- however defined as trivial, passing mention, routine, etc. -- does not count for purposes of determining notability, regardless of the reliability of the source.  The notability of a subject should not be determined by two or three sentences in The New York Times, The Times or The Washington Post.  This is where I part company with the so-called "inclusionists," too many of whom seem to believe that any subject that's ever been mentioned in three reliable sources is notable per WP:GNG.  That was never intended, and the constant erosion of the meaning of "significant" is one of the reasons why we have so many heated AfD arguments over stub articles about encyclopedically insignificant subjects.  Without the emphasis that coverage in reliable sources must be significant, the whole basis upon which we determine what subjects to include and exclude breaks down.  Some "inclusionist" editors believe that's entirely acceptable, even desirable.  I think that's madness.  We may argue about the merits of this particular topic -- and reasonable people may differ as to whether the coverage linked above is "significant" -- but the larger principle regarding the necessity of significant coverage must be clarified, emphasized and enforced as best we can.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about the madness. I certainly lean inclusionist, but within the GNG.  I agree that a couple of sentences don't make for significant coverage, but I also don't think covering massive bits of knowledge of the world is a problem.  I like the idea of Wikipedia being a central repository of reliable knowledge about the world.  I certainly see the harm keeping around non-notable (by any definition of the word) BLPs can have.  But I don't see how a reliably sourced article on a historical figure can hurt.  Someone out there may care, and that's what we should care about.  (I just had reason to need an article about a fairly obscure and small church.  It would have been sad had that article not been there (complete with a really useful picture).  My point is, there is rarely good reason not to cover material that is covered by reliable sources.  The only reason I'd care about a stand-alone article is that merged material is often cut back to the point of being useless...) Hobit (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per passing notable and Cunard! --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 20:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to a later merge per Dirtlawyer1. Sources are enough for the GNG to be met, but this AfD shouldn't be treated as a reason to disallow a later merge for editorial reasons (rather than GNG reasons). Hobit (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I had closed this discussion as Keep, as it seemed to me that the clear consensus, based on policy, was in that direction, although I acknowledge that there was some merit to those who favored delete. The preponderance of the policy !votes, to me, was clear to keep. However, the nominator left a message on my talk page requesting that I undo my closure. I am only alerting an admin, (my go-to admin on all things AfD related - hate to bother you... again), in order to make sure that my undo of the closure didn't mess up any formatting stuff. I will check the article's page and talk page to see what needs to be done there as well.  Onel 5969  TT me</i> 22:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. A biographical directory that includes every officer in charge of a ship is not being selective in its coverage,and is not a RES from notability . (I general, I consider  National Cyclopedia of American Biographya very questionable source for notability because of this sort of sweeping and uncritical coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know either way, but the premise of your comment here is disputed in a comment by Dirtlawyer at  18:10 on 16 December. Perhaps it would be helpful to continue discussion in order to determine which view is accurate. --joe deckertalk 02:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. The article's full of secondary sources, print secondary sources.  Regardless of the fact that he didn't appear to have done a ton of distinguishing stuff, he got lots of coverage in actual secondary sources.  This isn't some flash-in-the-pan Internet celebrity who's forgotten a few months after first appearing in the news: this is someone whose coverage postdates his death by decades.  Whether 100+ years or 100+ days have passed since the creation of the sources is irrelevant: what matters is his appearance in the sources (who cares about passing mentions), their reliability (his appearance in an oral history interview from his grandkids wouldn't matter), and their secondary status (we care about information that's republished by historians writing well after the fact, not primary sources such as newspapers from the time of an event), all of which appear to be satisfied here.  I understand the difficulties of the NCAB (see its article) about citing its sources, but the DANFS is a top-quality source (his appearance in each article being useful), and the other book sources appear to be solid.  Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2015 (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.