Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William B. Ault


 * 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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

William B. Ault

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep An airstrip and warship was named after him which are "significant award or honor"s and so pass WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to have SIGCOV in multiple RS sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Arguably played a significant role in the attacks on Lae and Salamaua and the Battle of the Coral Sea. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Which sources contain SIGCOV? Does the award suffice for him to pass NSOLDIER? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Piotrus one Navy Cross doesn't satisfy #1 of SOLDIER, but doing a Google Books search brings up sufficient mentions of him in various books that I believe amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hmmm. I'd rather see a few dedicated paragaph in one source, but you are probably right. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep combined the mentions, the Silver Star and the airstrip and warship all together squeak this past BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As a matter of housekeeping, I would note that this is there is a previous nomination for deletion that just went down the tubes. This is the second nomination.  This fact is being knowingly suppressed – on this and many articles.  See Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen.  The record should be corrected accordingly.  There is a systemic attempt to hide that fact over many articles.
 * This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond. This is 'putting old wine in new bottles' — doing by indirection that which you cannot do by direction.
 * This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact.  It is always put into the history.  I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles.  And all at once, overwheling the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions.  Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Silver Star/Ship name honorees for deletion.  It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles.  This is in fact a second nomination (among many).  And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy.  You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
 * A warship and an airstrip were named for him.
 * As at stands, this is a well developed article. And the existing sources have been ignored by the nominator and the DELETE voters.  WP:Preserve.
 * Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before.  The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 17:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Currently passes both WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Squeaks pass WP:GNG.-- Kieran207  talk  18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * comment I'm seeing a lot of issues with this discussion, starting with wondering why people are suggesting merging this with the Bauer article when it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ault. If nothing else that makes nearly all the "merge" recommendations non-contributory to a consensus. Second, inclusion in a group nomination that was procedurally closed as unmanageable really doesn't bear on this nomination; it would have been nice to have mentioned that, but as far as the discussion is concerned, trying to make an issue of it is an attempt to undo the "without prejudice for renomination" close of the previous nomination.


 * All that said, while there is a bio here, everything that isn't the incident inspiring the medal award is unsourced, and frankly, it's pretty mundane. There were nearly 400 destroyers built in the Fletcher/Sumner/Gearing classes, so having a ship named after him in those classes isn't that exclusive an honor. So we're back to the Navy Cross. Is it enough to make this fellow's story, by itself, worthy of an article? WP:SOLDIER says no; the Navy Cross is not at the highest level, and having a ship/facility named after him is not one of the criteria, so he would have to pass WP:GNG directly, which seems unlikely. At this point I'm not going to offer a definite opinion, but so far I'm not seeing anything that wouldn't support redirecting to the USS Ault article and ensuring that the latter described, in brief, the action which led to the Navy Cross award. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. (What the heck does he have to do with the Harry F. Bauer?) Unlike claims in other recent Afd nominations, he did play a significant part in a major battle, and is mentioned both in the Battle of the Coral Sea and by various sources. He also has a Naval Historical Foundation article. That, and not the ship named after him or the Navy Cross, is what puts him barely over the top as far as notability is concerned IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The NHF article is a very lightly edited version of the WP article. Mangoe (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but still, the NHF thought enough of him to post it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article comes from one of a couple of blog-like features, all posted by a single person. It's a fairly random walk through various historical vignettes, ranging from well-known persons and major battles to "Sailor of the Day" sort of material. I'm just not seeing how "whatever catches the poster's fancy" adds up to notability.Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit: by User:7&6=thirteen pasted a swathe of discussion from Articles for deletion/Harry F. Bauer onto this discussion, I suggest s/he fixes it. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

+redirect to USS Ault. Having a US destroyer named after you is not a major distinction, and the Navy Cross, while a major award, is not at the level where anyone is going to write 6,000+ articles to cover all recipients. What it says in the ship article is sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep And stop nominating these perfectly valid articles constantly. Having a warship named after you is a significant recognition of his notability.  This article is referenced and well developed.   D r e a m Focus  09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To a scattershot of unreliable sources. It does not "[recognize] his notability". - The Bushranger One ping only 10:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As per all above. Pilean (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the consensus at WT:MILHIST. Where independent reliable sources are not sufficient to meet WP:BIO, people who had ships named after them should be covered as part of the article on that ship. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 4 February 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.