Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langdon K. Fieberling


 * 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   merge to USS Fieberling (DE-640). Nakon 05:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Langdon K. Fieberling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:SOLDIER. A merge/redirect to USS Fieberling (DE-640) seems appropriate here. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is Wikipedia running out of pages? The man is different from the ship. As for notability, he's got a Navy Cross, role in the Battle of Midway, and had a warship named for him.
 * —WWoods (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Navy Cross isn't the Medal of Honor needed for automatic inclusion, thousands had a role in the battle, and another sailor I successfully(?) nominated for deletion/redirect also had a ship named after him. Are we running out of pages? No. So does that mean I can have a page too? Definitely no. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to USS Fieberling (DE-640). Junior officer with a single second-level decoration. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Many very junior people have USN ships named after them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:SOLDIER is an essay only and it is only listing categories of subjects that *MAY* be *PRESUMED* to be notable on the assumption of the level of coverage they *MIGHT* have. It is not a guideline so any deletion rationale made solely on the basis of this alone seems a weak one to me. That aside, in this case it would seem to me that the subject has sufficient coverage to be considered notable under WP:GNG, despite not having received the Medal of Honor. (He did of cse have a destroyer escort named after him by the US Navy instead which would seem quite a high honour to me, even if it isn't specifically included in WP:SOLDIER). There are a couple of dead tree sources listed as references in the article, including a short biography in DANFS and another book, whilst a quick search of Google Books reveals mentions in numerous books which describe the action for which he was awarded the Navy Cross. Whilst short, the article includes a range of bibliographic details which would probably be WP:UNDUE if merged into the article on the ship, and there seems sufficient detail and coverage to justify a stand alone article (albeit a brief one). What benefit to the encyclopaedia is there in deleting this? None that I can see. Finally comments like "So does that mean I can have a page too?" add nothing to this discussion, unless of course you were also posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for your actions at the Battle of Midway, had a ship named after you, and were written about in a bunch of books... That seems unlikely though. Anotherclown (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's only an essay, but it's widely accepted by those of us who write in the military field. I can't see why Fieberling is any more notable than any other junior officer who fought in a famous battle and won a second-level decoration. Dozens of these were won every day if one takes all the countries involved in the world wars. The USN has named its ships after many people who've won Navy Crosses. It's typical naming for the USN. Most other nations don't name their ships after people who've won decorations - does this difference in naval naming policy between the USA and other countries mean American recipients of such decorations are more significant than those of other countries who haven't had ships named after them (or indeed, of US Army or Air Force recipients of equivalent decorations)? No, of course it doesn't. As for the sources covering him, they're nothing more than routine coverage. The only possible reason I can see for his inclusion is that he commanded the first unit to engage the enemy at Midway, but I think that's a pretty weak reason to keep the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the first, nor even the first naval force to attack the Japanese, according to Battle of Midway. Nine B-17s from Midway Island attacked first, then more bombers, including "six Grumman Avengers, detached to Midway from the Hornet'​s VT-8". In fact, his entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships makes no such claim. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AFD isn't about finding a reason to keep the article though is it? The deletion rationale provided, as it stands, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the essay WP:SOLDIER, which lists categories of individuals that "will almost always have sufficient coverage" (i.e. a presumption) and are therefore likely to be notable (but only if they have said coverage). No where does it state that individuals in categories falling outside that list that also have significant coverage are not notable though, so stating something "fails WP:SOLDIER" is invalid as a deletion rationale as it is not an exclusive list (but an inclusive one instead). Ultimately policy takes precedence over an essay at any rate and that is the general notability guideline. As such this boils down to an assessment of whether the coverage Fieberling received was "significant" or not. On that point we have both made our arguments clear so I guess it is now up to others as to what they think. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Trust me that nobody is misunderstanding anything. There is no especial reason this individual is notable. WP:SOLDIER says that his rank and decoration do not make him notable without another reason for notability. There is not sufficient coverage to make him notable. He isn't notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Merge & Redirect to USS Fieberling (DE-640). Subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER, most reliable sources are about the namesake of a ship, where the ship is the primary subject of the content. While the ship itself is notable, namesakes of ships are not presumed notable. Furthermore the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage as a stand alone subject. The subject is mentioned in passing in regards to the Battle of Midway, but nothing that would meet WP:ANYBIO. Therefore, either the subject falls under WP:BIO1E, and should be redirected to the Battle of Midway article as was done for the article about Jimmy Nakayama, or to the ship named after the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Comment The subject is not mentioned in the Battle of Midway article. Someone searching on his name and getting the Battle of Midway article would be understandably very puzzled. Do we really want to clutter the articles on famous events with gratuitous mentions of people who fall below our threshold of notability? It seems that if a ship name is all that prompts a bio, then the subject should be included as a short section in the article on the ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:24, 14 February 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.