Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold John Ellison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 merge with USS Harold J. Ellison (DD-864). While the most preferred target was the cancelled DE-545 destroyer escort, I assume that is a result of the bandwagon effect, and that given the choice, most people would prefer the target to be the destroyer DD-864 since that one was actually built. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harold John Ellison (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. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I'm ok with either, as you note DE-545 was cancelled while DD-864 was built, but given that DE-545 has a page its not unreasonable to redirect there. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: agree with a redirect to DD-864 and a merge for DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort.  // Timothy :: talk  09:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misunderstood the earlier comment, I agree redirect to DD-864 and merge DE-545 to John C. Butler-class destroyer escort. Mztourist (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 into 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.
The Navy thought enough of them that they named a ship in his honor.
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 () 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.