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. The "keep" closure notwithstanding, a possible merge can still be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Parrish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are from Stars and Stripes, which lacks WP:INDEPENDENCE. Other sources are lacking, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 6th Port Headquarters. The nomination lacks WP:COMPETENCE. The contention that Parrish wrote Stars and Stripes, a major newspaper, is utterly absurd. Nor is the article written from a single source. Normally that would rate a speedy close, but I am not convinced that sufficient biographical material exists to create an article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see the nomination contending Parrish WROTE Stars and Stripes, but rather that the article was solely sourced FROM Stars and Stripes. That isn't accurate, but the majority of sources are Stars and Stripes. Unless, of course, there's another nomination out there that didn't come through correctly. Intothatdarkness 16:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By saying that Stars and Stripes is not independent of the subject, the nominator is indeed claiming that the subject of the article is the writer of Stars and Stripes. Most likely, the nominator is unaware of what is meant by independent of the subject. Or, for that matter, the fact that the sources used in the article are irrelevant to a determination of WP:GNG, since that depends on the existence of sources, not whether they are actually used in the article. And you're quite right; it isn't the only source used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still...was it necessary to go after the nominator? A simple "Merge...subject not notable on his own" would have easily sufficed. Intothatdarkness 21:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This was my first whole page, I was shocked that it was nominated for deletion within minutes after I created it. I don't see how any one could have read it and checked the citations so quickly. I would have hoped that giving it some time it might grow some citations, their must be more about this decorated veteran in 2 wars. I figured that if it doesn't grow, it could be merged into the the 6th Port Headquarters as Hawkeye7 suggested. I would love to see this get a little time and see if it grows. We really need to preserve history as best we can so future generations can have a valid, factual source for this kind of history. These units were so critical in the support of the troops with supplies, food and other critical items, basically thrown into a job that had little training. Without these support troops and the Col that brought them over, the war supply chain would have stalled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleebis007 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, and I have written a bit about them in Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign. Actually, it is not uncommon for articles to be nominated for deletion soon after being deleted. Or even deleted. The New Page Patrol (NPP) goes through the newly created articles. The first hurdle you have to get over is what we call a "credible claim of notability", and the best way to do that is with a first sentence that tells the NPP why the subject is worthy of an article. They won't check the citations. You managed to do that. In fact, I was the one who marked it as reviewed. However, you now have to make that case it passes GNG. Here, you have a problem, because we just can't find any biographical information about hi, It would be different if he had managed to get promoted to brigadier general. (Also I would be interested in locating a copy of the Men on the Job. I've told the MilHist Bot to look for it for me.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

In a quick search at newspapers.com, here are articles with biographical information in reliable sources:

1. Parrish Wins Merit Medal In North Africa https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/398157358/ That Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, Georgia) 08 Aug 1943 page 6 Notes: -awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptional meritiorious conduct in performance of outstanding service while serving in North Africa -at the conclusion of World War I, he held the rank of captain - called to serve again in 1940, he was stationed at Jacksonville, Fla and Fort Hamilton. He attended the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and the War College, Washington DC and served on the general staff of the war Department.

2. Lieut. Howard Parrish has arrived safely in France with his regiment. before entering training camp, he was assistant cashier of the Valdosta Bank & Trust Co. The Macon News, 4 June 1918, page 2 https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/823517353/?terms=%22Howard%20Parrish%22&match=1

3. Atlanta’s Largest and Oldest Bank The Atlanta and Lowry National Bank announces the purchase of the ATLANTA COMMERCIAL BANK Mr. Howard Parrish = active vice president of the Atlanta Commercial Bank for ten years, continue as manager of Marietta Street Branch The Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, George) 5 Oct 1929 page 6 https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/398063327/?terms=%22Howard%20Parrish%22&match=1

4. With his wife and son, Howard Parrish, Jr., he moved to Jacksonville, Florida where he was on active duty with headquarters of Second Military Area. The Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, George) 3 Nov 1940 page 29 https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/397904903/?terms=%22Howard%20Parrish%22&match=1

5. Howard Parrish was born in 1891, the son of Jesse Absolom Parrish[5] Adding: and his wife. He had two brothers, Roscoe T. Parrish, a postal worker who served in United States Navy, and Aubern Parrish. The family was raised in Valdosta, Georgia. The Atlanta Constitution (Atlanta, George) 13 May 1941 page 22 https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/384710027/?terms=%22Howard%20Parrish%22&match=1

6. Howard Parrish Goes With Atlanta Bank The Macon News, 17 Aug 1919, page 18 https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/823365090/?terms=%22Howard%20Parrish%22&match=1

7. Colonel Parrish's son, Howard Parrish, Jr. is a student at George Tech. https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/398157358/

8. https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/823365090/?terms=%22Howard%20Parrish%22&match=1

9. Receives Belated Commission As Captain

     The Macon News (Macon, George) 5 Oct 1919 page 12

Valdosta, GA HP recommended for promotion to a captaincy but paper never issued. among the first of the Americans to occupy German territory and was commander of the intelligence department of his battalion in the Coblens section..... re-entered the the banking business. received his belated commission as a captain...is on the retired list https://www.newspapers.com/image/legacy/398063327/?terms=%22Howard%20Parrish%22&match=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleebis007 (talk • contribs) 15:28, August 25, 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To invite scrutiny of the newly presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (retracted my closure to vote instead) as to me, the sources provided do not seem objectionable from a GNG standpoint. Obviously independent of the subject, sigcov is visible, seem to be secondary sources, and The Atlanta Constitution seems to be reliable. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.