Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted H. Scroggins


 * 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. This is fairly close to a merge, but doesn't quite get there. In any case, there is clearly no consensus to delete, that much is evident. v/r - TP 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ted H. Scroggins

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:SOLDIER and his life was cut short by World War II, so the article's got no further potential. A redirect and a sentence or two in USS Scroggins (DE-799) would not be out of line. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with USS Scroggins (DE-799); the vessel named in his honour. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The guy had a Navy ship named after him, so someone thought he was noteworthy. That puts him in a relatively small group of men. I can see not feeling any urgency to create the article, but since that's already been done, why delete it and put two different articles into one? Is Wikipedia running out of pages? —WWoods (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, no. That's very inclusionist of you. (I've added what I assumed was your view to the front of your comment for consensus tracking). Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would personally consider that having a ship named after him to be prima facie evidence of notability. It doesn't look like the idea occurred to anyone when they were writing WP:SOLDIER.  Though merging it into a section of the ship's article would be an acceptable compromise.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a ship named after somebody isn't automatic notability - I don't have links handy but past AfDs have rejected that, right or wrong... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect, subject utterly fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, & WP:SOLDIER due to lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. There is a brief mention of the subject on the Naval Heritage & History Command webpage for the ship which was named for the subject, but the subject is not the primary subject of that webpage. Therefore, content on this page in question, should be widdled down to what can be verified and moved into the article about the Destroyer Escort and a redirect left in the articlespace.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the ship article, as the soldier, while a brave and honorable man, lacks notability outside of being the ship's namesake. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge & Redirect, no, if any, reliable sources makes it hard to meet WP:GNG. Information is notable enough for a section as the ship's namesake.  EricSerge (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Normally I would vote to delete here, but the ship being named after him tips the balance in his favour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:SOLDIER is not a policy, it is an essay, and has no bearing on the discussion . Meets WP:GNG - how many individuals have a naval vessel named after them?   GregJackP   Boomer!   01:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ONLYESSAY. And lots of people have ships named after them. Notability is not inherited from the ship. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that notability is inherited from a ship, but that the USN thought he was significant enough to have a ship named after him! This was not a yacht named after somebody's girlfriend, but a destroyer escort of a national navy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - a "tin can" of which nearly (at least?) 500 were built, en masse, churned out on the second-closest thing ships got to assembly lines (second place to the Liberty ships). If a cruiser, battleship, or carrier was named after him, there'd be a case, but a destroyer is not a major surface combatant and having one named after you is (well, was - nowadays ship naming is based on the policy that "fish don't vote" ) the Navy's way of saying "you done good, dead sailor". - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 3 September 2012 (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.