Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard L. Cevoli


 * 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. Consensus is to keep, even if weakly. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Richard L. Cevoli

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A hero? Absolutely. Notable? I'm not seeing it. He did have a post office named after him, and a person under his command won the Medal of Honor, but neither of those establish GNG, and I don't think induction into the Rhode Island Aviation Hall of Fame is sufficient by itself. There are one or two articles in The Providence Journal, but I don't think they're enough to substantiate notability on their own. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep 2nd highest medal for valor - all properly sourced. IMHO, naming a post office after him is by itself notable. Rklawton (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The relevant SNG here is WP:SOLDIER #1 - which explicitly has the Navy Cross mentioned as the example of the "second-level" award that being awarded multiple times can be considered to confer notability. Falling back on GNG, I think there's barely enough here, between the Navy Cross and the news around his postal-service memorial - adding a bit on his winning the Navy Cross (a Providence Journal article from 1945, "Lt. Richard Cevoli Wins Navy Cross", may be able to be tracked down) would help. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * interesting. I also found a bit of coverage in this book, but cannot decide if the book actually has encyclopedic value in determining notability. What do you (and others) think? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the book was about Cevoli, absolutely, but it's basically a set of passing mentions in someone else's biography. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER (one award of the Navy Cross doesn't meet #1) and WP:GNG.Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I'll be honest, this is probably more akin to 'Weak Keep' based on my limited knowledge of Wikipedia. My voice however should not be considered very heavily since I've done some minor work on the page and because I did the pages for Cecil Harris and VF-18. Besides The Providence Journal, Cevoli's name appeared in a number of papers nationwide as a result of Brown/Hudner, and with his death in 1955 appeared locally and in Florida. His name was read into the congressional record, he in a state aviation hall of fame, has a post office named after him, appears in a few books, etc. I know that's not strong relative to some other figures, but at the same time, it seems strange (and somewhat arbitrary to me) that someone who may be less noteworthy in a number of categories (book and newspaper mentions for example) but who has won two Navy Crosses qualifies for a page, while someone like Cevoli may not. Cheers, Finktron (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Darkwind (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - probably enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kolma8 (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant between the Navy Cross and other mentioning... Kolma8 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 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.