Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley C. Norton


 * 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. Editors have achieved a strong consensus that the article subject is notable, owing to significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Stanley C. Norton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:BASIC, Navsource not RS and just confirms ships commanded. Hickam's Torpedo Junction no page numbers provided, just confirms that he commanded Destroyer Division 54 and WP:1E of sinking of U-85. Military Times Hall of Valor debatable reliability just confirms award for sinking of U-85. Bunch's U-Boats off the Outer Banks which I added, again just confirms his command of Destroyer Division 54 and sinking of U-85. A Google search throws up various US Navy publications listing his promotions or commands, but nothing of any substance. Basic biographical detail is lacking. For a Rear Admiral he had surprisingly little coverage and so is not notable Mztourist (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There are no page numbers provided because you deleted them all. The pages I included that you deleted were all the various places Norton was referenced in the book. Do you actually open the linked books and read? Torpedo Junction p.138-139, obviously more than a passing mention from a reliable secondary source and thus passes WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to provide specific page numbers for each claim being supported, listing every page of the book where he is referred to doesn't satisfy referencing which is why I deleted them, it just looks like you copied his index entry from the book. The pages that you referred to were not available online. The bigger issue is that the reference, the other new book that you added: United States destroyer operations in World War II and the Miami Herald story again just cover the WP:1E of the sinking of U-85. They don't provide any biographical detail about him other than that one event. Everything can be covered in a paragraphs on the USS Roper (DD-147) and GS U-85 (1941) pages which I have already added. Find a Grave is user contributed and so not RS. The detail about accelerating the graduating classes at Annapolis is generic and not specific to him. Mztourist (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mostly because the nominator did not WP:AGF the page numbers given, removed them, stated that no pages were given after having removed them, and then assumed that the editor who added it didn't have access to the resource outside of google books and was being deceptive. This is acting in bad faith in my opinion. It's perfectly plausible that the editor who added that resource had access to it through some other means such as a library or another online resource and could have accessed the pages hidden in google books elsewhere. Aside from that, I'm not seeing a convincing source analysis for deletion. It looks like BASIC is met based on the refs in the article.4meter4 (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't AGF with the page creator because of the various accusations he has made and his REVENGE AFDs. If you add a ref you provide specific page numbers for the matter being referenced, not 6 different pages: . In your source analysis it doesn't concern you that the sources are generally user contributed, PRIMARY or relate to the WP:1E of the sinking of U-85? Mztourist (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The two main sources from the article, Military Times and the Portsmouth Herald, are both independent publications with editorial oversight and constitute significant independent coverage. The rest of the RS is either primary sources or less in depth but collectively adds up to passing GNG in my view. Given that one of these sources was written years after his death and both sources years after the event in question we are seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage which indicates wider significance justifying a stand alone article as articulated at WP:1E. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are two of 20 sources and I don't regard Military Times as reliable, the page states "The Hall of Valor is a searchable database of valor award citations collected by Doug Sterner, a Vietnam veteran and Military Times contributing editor, and by Military Times staff.". There is no sustained coverage here, some passing mentions, PRIMARY sources details his promotions and then the WP:1E of the attack on U-85. Strangely there is nothing at all about him after that other than the listing of his command of USS Trenton from June 1943 to June 1944. Mztourist (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you there. military Times is an independent news organization with an editorial board and a staff of full time journalists. The compiler of The Hall of Valor is a senior editor with years working as an independent journalist. There’s really nothing here to discredit either source.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I was pondering closing this as a keep, though whilst the argument on the page citations is relevant (on both sides), removing in entirety then using this omission as a means to strengthen a deletion rationale is poorly considered, though not in itself a reason to close as keep. Besides this, the deletion rationale seems fair and the keep !votes seem to be more focused on the page citations removal than source integrity, thus I am a bit on the fence between keep or relist. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:1E isn't really relevant here if you accept that, "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". I would suggest both of those things are true. Yes, for most of his career he might have been considered just another commanding officer, and we likely wouldn't be here were it not for that event, but that also means there is no requirement for sustained coverage of the rest of his non-notable career. Suggesting that is required is a bit of a red herring.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the only event of his life for which there is a reasonable amount of coverage, so yes WP:1E is relevant. Everything else apart from his obit is passing mentions in PRIMARY sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, but if the role and his involvement in it were significant, WP:1E ceases to be a valid reason for deletion and adequate justification for an article.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it means that the sinking of U-85 justifies a page and the minimal detail about him should be merged into it. Mztourist (talk) 04:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We can have articles for both. We're not running out of paper.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. There seems to be plenty of coverage of the guy. I was able to find twelve newspaper sources, which I've added to the article. I think this should resolve any dispute over source integrity from previously existing citations. Pinging, who raised this issue previously. jp×g 23:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: For reference, the sources are these:           . jp×g 23:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment more WP:REFBOMBING. 1, 2, are the same story about the WP:1E of the sinking of U-85, 3 is just a promotion listing, 4 a photo and his name about Navy Cross award for sinking of U-85 (for which there is now overkill of 6 refs), 5, 7, 8 and 9 his name in list of naval orders, 6 a very short story about him with no real detail, 10 naval listing, 11 one sentence mention of transfer and 12 listing of his acceptance to Annapolis. So nothing that really adds anything to what is already on the page and still no details about him after 1944. Mztourist (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I use reliable sourcing guidelines, general notability guidelines and significant coverage guidelines to determine what sources I include in an article. If you can explain why the sources above don't meet these guidelines, I'm willing to listen, and I'll remove any that fall short -- but I don't see what your comment has to do with that. jp×g 07:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As with your other recent efforts, they amount to REFBOMBING which if you read it states that "A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information." and "Citations lacking significant coverage – Citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree." Most of the refs you have added here and on the other current AFDs are mere namechecks and passing mentions that add little to what is already there, the news stories may be useful for replacing PRIMARY sources in the article, but it seems that you are just adding multiple passing mentions as references for the same facts. Mztourist (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, the primary purpose of citations is to support the text of an article; winning arguments at AfD is a secondary consideration. It's certainly not my attempt to bamboozle you into thinking that every single source in the article is, in its own right, SIGCOV (that's why I linked all of the references I added here in this discussion so that you could read through them). jp×g 05:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How many of the refs that you added, actually added new information to the page? Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What? jp×g 08:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You say that "the primary purpose of citations is to support the text of an article; winning arguments at AfD is a secondary consideration" and so I'm asking you what new information was added to the page as a result of the refs that you added? Because I really don't see much that wasn't there already. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article's prose size increased from 247 to 314 words, which is a 27% expansion, so I have no idea what you are talking about and would appreciate if you refrained from casting aspersions. jp×g 22:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Prose size is irrelevant, what is relevant is what new information was added, which is minimal. What aspersions am I casting? I have already made my views very clear that you are REFBOMBING articles at AFD. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep a diligent WP:BEFORE is needed before giving an article the death penalty. The many references show a notable subject. We WP:PRESERVE such articles. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A very WP:MILL military career with one notable event and nothing about his life from 1944 to his death in 1978. A BEFORE search revealed nothing of note and a lot of passing mentions in promotions and postings lists don't change that.Mztourist (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MILL is just an essay. Lightburst (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes its an essay, but that doesn't mean its not true. Norton had a completely run of the mill military career, with one significant event, the sinking of U-85. Mztourist (talk) 14:17, 8 October 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.