Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon M. Cummings

Damon M. Cummings

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Damon M. Cummings (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 as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643). Fails WP:SOLDIER (LtCDR posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor") and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge to the ship per Mztourist. It is apparent from the various deletion discussions regarding these single Navy Cross recipients with ships named after them that we need to get a community view on whether having a ship named after you is a “significant award or honour”. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Mergeto USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but the content will improve the target article, be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per WP:N, "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge.  // Timothy :: talk  15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Delete having a ship named after you is not a "significant award or honor" when the navy is churning out almost 500 ships in a very short time and for some inexplicable reason feels they all need to be named after people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect and Merge to USS Damon M. Cummings (DE-643), it's more appropriate to have relevant information about a ship's namesake in the ship's article than a completely separate article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:23, 28 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 Wikipedia: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, overwhelming 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 was were named for him. 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&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

How is that at all relevant? There was no discussion of this specific page (nor any of the others below where you've cut and pasted the same comments) in the mass deletion which was closed as a procedural keep. What possible difference would it make if this was marked as the 2nd Nomination? I'll tell you, none whatsoever. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

None of it is relevant, faux outrage, hyperbole, and walls of text are camouflage for lack of sources showing SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  16:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)