Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Edward Massey


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Lance Edward Massey

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I Merged all the information on this page into the namesake section of USS Massey per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 159 and blanked and Redirected this page on 23 February. The Redirect was undone on 24 February with the comment "midway squadron commander played an important role in a major battle and covered in all histories of it". I have searched for information about Massey and other than passing mentions largely around the WP:1E of his role in the Battle of Midway I'm not seeing SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Many of the details on the page are actually unverified due to a lack of inline sources. Accordingly the Redirect should be restored. Mztourist (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: this is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first was on 23 January 2021 - " Closed as procedural Keep". (Technically the third 3rd if you count the blanking by the nominator which then restored). FYI - wolf  15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * KeepCommanding officer of one of the torpedo wings at Midway, depicted by Steve Kanaly in Midway. Added refs that describe Midway record. Needs a rewrite with refs inclined not a delete, as notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Thach coverage re Midway is thin, the article is about Thach and his squadron rather than VT-3. Hard to verify the extent of the other coverage without page numbers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - especially in light of the work that's been going into it since the nom. - wolf  21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  12:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. His actions in Midway is notable. USN awarded his action in Midway by a posthumous Navy Cross. thus his actions must be important and notable. He also have DFC, which is also a highly prestigious award. SunDawn (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge back with his namesake ship. The new sources can't be verified without page numbers, and just because someone's written into a movie doesn't mean they're automatically notable. I just don't see enough RS concerning Massey in particular for this to pass for me as a standalone article. Intothatdarkness 21:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Intothatdarkness - "sources can't be verified without page numbers" Per WP:V: "". Page numbers, while "ideal" are not mandatory for content to be properly sourced, as the source can still be verified. - wolf  23:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's sloppy. You can't determine if it was just a namecheck or if there was actual content. Still a merge for me. Intothatdarkness 02:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very sloppy. If Users are determined to rescue pages then they should make the effort to add properly referenced cites rather than just saying stuff exists or providing incomplete cites. Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And much of the life and career content of the article at the moment doesn't even have a general cite to a source let alone one with a page number. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just addressing the comment by Intothatdarkness, that while they seem to find it frustrating (and therefore very frustrating for Mztourist) that a page number wasn't added, it is still sourced. - wolf  19:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Thewolfchild Take a look at Paul Teitgen for an example of what should be done when you !vote Keep at AFD and say other sources are available. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mztourist; Take a look at how often you reply to !voters you don't like to argue about their !votes or comments. If you don't want to be accused of badgering, them don't badger. (And the always-must-have-the-last-word bit doesn't help either.) - wolf  07:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild you decided to comment specifically about me so I commented back at you. If you keep commenting on other Users then you don't get to decide that the conversation is over. Mztourist (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * QED - wolf  19:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The Ward book is 174 pages, the Smith one is 350 pages so without page numbers verification is going to be slow. Fortunately google books gave me a sneak of the latter's index and Massey is mentioned on pages 77, and 98-99 but going by the preview it's passing mentions. The snippet view on the Ward book shows me three mentions but seems thin as in "Yorktown had launched her VT-3 squadron, twelve torpedo planes under command of Lietuentant Commander Lance E Massey, first because of their slow speed". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like namechecks on the whole, then. And in response to one of the comments above (@Thewolfchild), please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say frustrating, I said sloppy. And citing without page numbers is, at the end of the day, sloppy. Verification of sources is an important part of building credibility, and not including page numbers makes that difficult. More so than it needs to be. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No one must be notable unless its clearly shown there is a policy that support that. The keep votes are arguing by assertion and not putting forward a strong policy case. Relisted to allow participants to cover the actual policy

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, y Humbug! 16:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have yet to see anything convincing enough to change my opinion from Merge to the named ship. Passing mention and namechecks don't create notability. Having this information with his namesake ship preserves it without giving undue weight to the subject. Intothatdarkness 20:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article now has twice as many refs as it did when this nom was posted, along with other improvements. (fyi) - wolf  07:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the expansion between nomination (2nd March) and last edit to date (5 March) - 3 refs added to the same paragraph about the award of the DFC. DANFS, Ward Smith and Smith (which as I said above look thin) but no additional text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please discuss sources

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources that can be verified are mostly namechecks (the Thach article along with the information provided by GraemeLeggett). Not enough to justify, in my view, a standalone article. As noted previously, the information won't disappear, but rather be folded back into the namesake ship article. I haven't seen any standalone articles about him, or substantial mentions in RS concerning the Midway Campaign.Intothatdarkness 20:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge I'm not seeing much on this guy outside of namedrops, the DANFS bio (which ties him to the ship), and WP:1E instances. The article for the USS Massey has plenty of room for the bio of this guy. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Added four additional sources today, along with some copyediting. (fyi) - wolf  01:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The Coronado Times source looks to be a reprint of the original Wiki article (and is courtesy of the USS Massey Association). The National Interest is a one paragraph namecheck recycling the Navy Cross information. And the last is an extensive history of the ship, with a short paragraph about its namesake. Just pointing out that two of the three point directly to the ship and don't add anything to what's already in the article. Which, to me, makes a stronger argument for merging him back with the namesake ship. Intothatdarkness 02:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The National Interest also has a quote from a pilot that witnessed Massey's death, and there's a fourth source, a bio from Navy's Heritage Command that was added to 'external links'. (fyi) - wolf  03:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does US Navy Heritage Command count as 'independent of subject' per SigCov requirements? The National Interest is quoting text from Moore's Pacific Payback - it isn't a quote from another pilot.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I only stated that additional sources were added. The US Navy is a source, a reliable one that is used regularly and often, especially in these types of articles. And the quote begins with; "", which certainly seems to indicate the quote came from another pilot. (Besides, who else would've been in a position to see that?). - wolf  02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SigCov asks for sources that are not "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It also states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - wolf  14:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And the National Interest article isn't about Massey (I'm not sure having read it what the article is about... musings on how China shouldn't start trouble at sea because America won the Pacific War I possibly). GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but there is content about Massey in the article, including the quote about his final moments, which is why is was added. - wolf  02:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207 ( talk - Contribs ) 01:49, 6 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.