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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete this article, with a solid majority of participating editors preferring to keep it, and the next largest group supporting a redirect to one of two potential redirect targets. Participants advocating keeping the article have articulate a somewhat more substantial basis for doing so in this case than has been done for other articles nominated for deletion on the same basis. BD2412 T 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Willard Keith[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Willard Keith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. A Captain (United States) posthumously awarded a Navy Cross is not notable. His role as namesake of the USS Willard Keith (DD-775) is set out on that page. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of that amounts to SIGCOV in multiple RS. The Navy history is simply about his role as namesake of the ship, everyone who has a ship named after them gets a writeup like that. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And only notable people have US Navy ships named after them. You have the USN history site, LA Times x2, that's plenty for GNG. Unfortunately most sources will be from 1942 and would not be online. Toddst1 (talk)
So many ships were made in WWII that they named them after non-notable medal recipients. There is not SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don’t know the reliability of article, according to United States ship naming conventions, the U.S. Navy names destroyers after "Navy and Marine Corps heroes". I have never heard that destroyers were "named after non-notable medal recipients". Can you please provide a reliable source for that? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How the U.S. Navy names ships is not a determinant of notability on WP. Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it may not be the determinant for notability, the fact that the Navy selected him as the namesake of a destroyer is a factor in establishing notability. My point is that destroyers are not "named after non-notable medal recipients", but rather someone the navy recognizes as a "hero". IMHO, that fact contributes to reaching the threshold of notability. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk)
Please explain how his role in the months-long battle of Guadalcanal was "decisive". Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guadalcanal was a campaign, which is a series of battles. He led a company of Marines in the hotly contested area of the Matanikau River. He personally initiated and led successive hand grenade and bayonet charges in the face of tremendous fire, which resulted in annihilation of the enemy from the area. It is actions like these which are decisive in a battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, his role in one small skirmish was not in any way decisive in determining the outcome of the campaign. The action is entirely unreferenced, which is hardly a sign of a major battle, unlike the earlier Actions along the Matanikau, nor does this supposedly significant action even rate a mention on the Guadalcanal campaign, so he fails #4 of WP:SOLDIER as he did not "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign." Mztourist (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In his award citation, the results of his leadership and actions were referred to as having "annihilated" the enemy force as part of an "offensive" by the Marines. It was not during "a small skirmish", but rather during the Fourth Battle of Matanikau in November, and not the one you are referring to above. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The engagement is entirely unreferenced on his page and on the Guadalcanal campaign page, so clearly not a "significant military event". Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Fourth Battle of Matanikau in November is covered by an article on the battle and on the Guadalcanal campaign page, and thus can be considered a "significant military event" and not a "small skirmish". The fact that he is not mentioned by name seems an oversight IMHO, but the actions he was involved with are reflected in the article on the battle. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a "small skirmish" the entire "offensive" was 3 days long with moderate losses. Most of the Matanikau Offensive is background and he isn't even mentioned. Mztourist (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, I would classify an offensive involving 5,000 personnel with 471 killed in action as a "significant military event" as compared to a "small skirmish". This offensive involved coordinated air, artillery and naval action. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above discussion, did not play "an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign." sufficient to satisfy #4 of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they did, and you're applying WP:SOLDIER way too strictly. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rationale for #4 misinterprets what I said. The fact that most of the Navy Cross recipients on the list have no articles indicates the award does not establish notability. I in no way implied that it was a substitute for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments.... However, the fact that most of the Navy Cross recipients have no articles does not mean that they are not notable. It means that there is not (yet) an article written on the subject. — ERcheck (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not dealing with the actual disagreement here. We already have something of a standing consensus that neither the Navy Cross as a decoration nor having a ship named after them satisfies independent notability. Also, I have to say that across all these discussions there is something of a failure to deal with the issue of making two copies of the same text. Instead, I keep seeing having one's own article is a prize to be won in the Notability Stakes. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many reasons for receiving the Navy Cross. In his case, he had a leadership role that had decisive impact on a battle that was a significant military event, in addition to it being heroic. This has been addressed in this discussion. On a different but related note, IMHO, the fact that the Navy Cross is specifically mentioned here has led to a bias against this award. The Navy Cross is the highest award for the U.S. naval services, which includes the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps as well as Coast Guard and Merchant Marines when federalized, currently about 750,000 personnel, far larger than the total size of military forces of most countries. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He played a role in a small skirmish in the Matanikau Offensive and isn't even mentioned on that page, so clearly it and his role were not that important. The highest award for any U.S. service member is the Medal of Honor. The size of U.S. naval forces is completely irrelevant to anything. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and he doesn't satisfy that, there's his DANFS bio and two other sources of dubious value. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the size of US forces plays against these nominations, as I've noted before. There were hundreds of US destroyers and destroyer escorts; for a lot of these guys the only thing we know about them is that they were KIA, presumably valiantly. And that's the presenting problem: we can't write much more than a stub based on the medal award, a stub which is going to be included in the ship's article anyway. I just don't understand why people are insisting that that we have to repeat this material in multiple places where one will do just fine. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "well-known and significant award or honor"? Consensus is that having a ship named after him does not confer notability: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability. If you think the page can be improved by editing then do it, don't just talk about it, but the sources just aren't there and so he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mztourist, first the discussion you link to was only started on January 31st, so, 13 days after you started this AFD. You can hardly claim that a discussion that occurred 13 days after your nomination was a justification for your nomination.
  • Second, I think the question in the discussion you linked to was whether being the namesake of a vessel established notability -- ALL BY ITSELF. I think you know, full well, that absolutely no one has argued that, here, or anywhere else. It is a strawman argument.
  • Third, while wikipedia's definition of a consensus differs from the Parliamentary definition of a consensus I think almost everyone agrees that all genuine wikipedia consensuses (consensii?) are established through a civil and collegial discussion of all involved parties. At the time the discussion you linked to took place there were multiple AFD going on where multiple individuals had argued for considering being a namesake as a strong notability factor. No one placed a heads-up in those AFD that a related discussion was taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. So, please don't represent it as a bonafide consensus. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says: " For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is being argued is that being argued is that having a large naval vessel named after you is a strong notability factor. As has been pointed out to you, in many AFD, is that hardly any of the BLP individuals we cover in standalone articles had their notability established by one single factor. WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC can establish notability with a single factor. But 99 of our BLP individuals have their notability establish by a cumulative assessment of all their notability factors. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Andrew Davidson did not clarify what "well-known and significant award or honor" was being referred to. Based on his argument on numerous similar AFD it was a fair assumption that he was referring to the ship being named for him. The fact that the ship discussion only began after I started this AFD is irrelevant, it arose from the Keep argument that Andrew added to most of the current AFDs. You seem to suggest that my deletion arguments must be frozen in time, without any account for new information, which isn't the case. It wasn't my responsibility to "place a heads-up", about the ship notability discussion, you can take that up with Dream Focus, but it is not an unreasonable assumption that people who participate in military deletion discussions also watch Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, anyway there is a clear consensus on the issue among the MilHist project, having a ship named after you does not establish notability. In relation to your BEFORE argument below, only one User has actually bothered adding any sources to the page since I AFDed it, but in my view those sources are largely about the battle he died in and still don't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS of him. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As this is proving to be somewhat contentious, I don't think there is a problem giving it a second relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2021 (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.
More