The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time, but consensus to merge to USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125) after that article is created. Sandstein 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The reference does not support the claim (While the blog is the official blog of the Coast Guard there are two comments claiming the information is incorrect). Additionally, the subject does not meet WP:GNG nor the Military Wikiproject's suggestions for notability (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People). The ship it self may warrant a standalone article however that ship is not even finished yet. CommotioCerebri ( talk) 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: The first sentence of CC's nomination seems to me to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's deletion policy. Nominator SEEMS to be calling for this article's deletion simply because they believe the article contains an unspecified inaccuracy.
Of course when a topic measures up to our inclusion standards, a nominator's concern with the article's accuracy are not grounds for deletion. Articles on notable topics that are genuinely inaccurate are supposed to be brought up to date, or otherwise corrected, or, at least, marked for update or correction. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Most ships don't have a human namesake. Some civilian shipping firms do have a tradition to name some or all of their tugboats or freighters after family members, and those family members usually don't have significant notability.
When an individual is chosen to be the namesake for vessel built for a public institution, like a Navy, a Coast Guard, a Fire Department, an Environmental or Fishery Ministry, that choice itself conveys considerable notability.
Some of our special purpose notability guidelines explicitly recognize peer recognition as proof of notability in that field. WP:ACADEMIC, for instance, says that when an academic has an issue of a Journal, or a book, or a conference, where each paper is about their work, or follow-ons to their work, this establishes tha individual's notability. We respect that the experts in a field know who should really be considered notable in that field. When it comes to Coast Guard work, the committee process where senior respected Coast Guardmen, and respected outsiders, picked men and women they thought merited recognition is that peer review. I suggest it establishes their notability.
It could be argued that to discount the expert opinion of experienced Coast Guardmen, to argue that they don't know who are those who are notable, in their own field, is editorializing, and a lapse from compliance with the policies that remind us that we are not experts in the fields we cover, that we rely on the opinions of actual experts in those fields. Let's not second guess them. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The cutter named after him is the 25th such vessel. Generally, when these cutters are commissioned, or when they arrive at their home port, newspapers publish profiles of the namesakes.
If one of more newspapers in Florida, or Louisiana, or elsewhere, publish a celebration of his life, which includes interviews with his relatives, or other people who knew him, would you agree our inclusion criteria are met? What if those profile(s) contain new details, because those reporters did a better job of searching for records about Poroo? What if those profiles only paraphrase the references we have already found? Does additional coverage of the details we already know establish notabilty?
I continue to believe that experts in Poroo's field recommending recognizing his heroism by naming a $50 million vessel after them, is a strong peer recognition, and thus a strong notability factor. But, if the consensus is that Poroo is not currently notable I think it would be highly useful if you went on record as to what, in addition, you think would establish his notability, to your satisfaction. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
|
So, is it your position that when the US Coast Guard honors Poroo's heroism by naming a $50,000,000 cutter after him, this is not a "significant award or honor"? If that IS your position, perhaps you could explain WHY honoring someone by naming a $50,000,000 vessel after them is not a "significant honor". Geo Swan ( talk) 11:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd be very interested in what you think after considering the suggestion that the notable people we cover are notable for what RS wrote about what they did or said, or the impact of what they did or said -- not who they married, or where they were born, where they went to school.
Consider the spouses of celebrities, or spouses of members of the UK Royal Family, or the extended Kennedy clan. These are individuals for whom we do know all the mundane milestones, but, most of the time, we don't start articles on spouses, children, parents. The exceptions, where we start and keep a BLP who is related to someone who is more notable than they are, have nevertheless had enough coverage in RS, of notable things they themselves did or said, or the impact of what they did or said. I point this out as further establish that it is not the mundane milestones that make an individual measure up to our inclusion criteria. It is the notable coverage of what they did or said, or the impact thereof. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time, but consensus to merge to USCGC Jacob L. A. Poroo (WPC-1125) after that article is created. Sandstein 09:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The reference does not support the claim (While the blog is the official blog of the Coast Guard there are two comments claiming the information is incorrect). Additionally, the subject does not meet WP:GNG nor the Military Wikiproject's suggestions for notability (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People). The ship it self may warrant a standalone article however that ship is not even finished yet. CommotioCerebri ( talk) 13:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Note: The first sentence of CC's nomination seems to me to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the wikipedia's deletion policy. Nominator SEEMS to be calling for this article's deletion simply because they believe the article contains an unspecified inaccuracy.
Of course when a topic measures up to our inclusion standards, a nominator's concern with the article's accuracy are not grounds for deletion. Articles on notable topics that are genuinely inaccurate are supposed to be brought up to date, or otherwise corrected, or, at least, marked for update or correction. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Most ships don't have a human namesake. Some civilian shipping firms do have a tradition to name some or all of their tugboats or freighters after family members, and those family members usually don't have significant notability.
When an individual is chosen to be the namesake for vessel built for a public institution, like a Navy, a Coast Guard, a Fire Department, an Environmental or Fishery Ministry, that choice itself conveys considerable notability.
Some of our special purpose notability guidelines explicitly recognize peer recognition as proof of notability in that field. WP:ACADEMIC, for instance, says that when an academic has an issue of a Journal, or a book, or a conference, where each paper is about their work, or follow-ons to their work, this establishes tha individual's notability. We respect that the experts in a field know who should really be considered notable in that field. When it comes to Coast Guard work, the committee process where senior respected Coast Guardmen, and respected outsiders, picked men and women they thought merited recognition is that peer review. I suggest it establishes their notability.
It could be argued that to discount the expert opinion of experienced Coast Guardmen, to argue that they don't know who are those who are notable, in their own field, is editorializing, and a lapse from compliance with the policies that remind us that we are not experts in the fields we cover, that we rely on the opinions of actual experts in those fields. Let's not second guess them. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The cutter named after him is the 25th such vessel. Generally, when these cutters are commissioned, or when they arrive at their home port, newspapers publish profiles of the namesakes.
If one of more newspapers in Florida, or Louisiana, or elsewhere, publish a celebration of his life, which includes interviews with his relatives, or other people who knew him, would you agree our inclusion criteria are met? What if those profile(s) contain new details, because those reporters did a better job of searching for records about Poroo? What if those profiles only paraphrase the references we have already found? Does additional coverage of the details we already know establish notabilty?
I continue to believe that experts in Poroo's field recommending recognizing his heroism by naming a $50 million vessel after them, is a strong peer recognition, and thus a strong notability factor. But, if the consensus is that Poroo is not currently notable I think it would be highly useful if you went on record as to what, in addition, you think would establish his notability, to your satisfaction. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
|
So, is it your position that when the US Coast Guard honors Poroo's heroism by naming a $50,000,000 cutter after him, this is not a "significant award or honor"? If that IS your position, perhaps you could explain WHY honoring someone by naming a $50,000,000 vessel after them is not a "significant honor". Geo Swan ( talk) 11:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd be very interested in what you think after considering the suggestion that the notable people we cover are notable for what RS wrote about what they did or said, or the impact of what they did or said -- not who they married, or where they were born, where they went to school.
Consider the spouses of celebrities, or spouses of members of the UK Royal Family, or the extended Kennedy clan. These are individuals for whom we do know all the mundane milestones, but, most of the time, we don't start articles on spouses, children, parents. The exceptions, where we start and keep a BLP who is related to someone who is more notable than they are, have nevertheless had enough coverage in RS, of notable things they themselves did or said, or the impact of what they did or said. I point this out as further establish that it is not the mundane milestones that make an individual measure up to our inclusion criteria. It is the notable coverage of what they did or said, or the impact thereof. Geo Swan ( talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)