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. Consensus is that the subject meets the relevant notability guidelines. Jester's case, given the amount and type of coverage, is distinguishable from the other ship namesake AfDs. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice D. Jester[edit]

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

Maurice D. Jester (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. One award of the Navy Cross and a rank of Lieutenant commander (United States) doesn't make him notable. His role as namesake of the planned USCGC Maurice Jester (WPC-1152) can be set out on that page Mztourist (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we should have an article about Jester is that he unquestionably measures up to GNG. He appeared on the cover of Life magazine, for crying out loud.
He sank a u-boat. Not only did he sink a u-boat, it was one of the first u-boat sunk by US forces. So his sinking of it was highly covered by RS. He didn't only sink a u-boat, he sank one that was larger and better armed than his own cutter. His cutter's main armament was a single short 3 inch gun, while the u-boat was armed with a longer and more powerful 88mm.
Topics merit coverage when they measure up to GNG. I know you know this.
I am going to suggest the closing administrator ignore you, unless you can add an argument based on policy or long-standing convention. Geo Swan (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact we don't have an article on the ship named after him because the ship has yet to be built and when it has been we will. JPL, seriously, if you're going to !vote in AfDs please make valid arguments. It's getting to the point where your participation in AfDs is actively damaging to them. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushranger, Mztourist didn't say so here, or in the dozens of other AFD he or she recently filed, but he or she seems to have decided to file an AFD against every single article on anyone who is the namesake of a USN or USCG vessel. Personally, I think that, before setting out on this unilateral campaign, they should have sought out other people's opinions on whether this was a good idea, at the military history project, BLPN, or village pump. What do you think? Geo Swan (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am following the previous procedure for non-notable medal recipients who had ships named after them in WWII. If you believe that there is SIGCOV in multiple RS then add it in. Saying "There are about a dozen books, not from the USCG, published in the late 1940s or 1950s that cover him" doesn't cut it. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mztourist says he or she is "following the previous procedure for non-notable medal recipients who had ships named after them in WWII." In the interests of collegiality I request they link to the wikidocument of discussion where that procedure was laid out. Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I already looked through your recent burst of individual nominations of the individuals who were both heroic medal winners and recognized by having a ship named after them. I don't see how there is any way you can point to any of the AFD from your recent burst as establishing a the precedent of a "previous procedure". I am sorry that simply doesn't seem like an argument that merits serious consideration. It seems to me it falls far short of what you implied with your claim of "previous procedures". Geo Swan (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said you are free to look back over all past AFDs of military people who had ships named after them and see what the outcomes were, that consensus is the previous procedure I was referring to and the basis for my nominations which generally result in redirects to the ships. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have participated in past AFD of namesakes of vessels, and I challenge your claim that there is a precedent for you to call upon. I think your effort was, well, reckless, and that your efforts to comply with BEFORE - if you made any - fell short. Geo Swan (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you are in a position to tell other people how to find the article?
When I try to give a fair report back as to how much of an article is about a topic I count the total number of paragraphs, and how many mention that topic. Do you have an idea as the total number of paragraphs? Geo Swan (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found it on Google Books. The availabilty of the content is often dependent on geographical location though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sjakkalle, in the interests of collegiality, could you please share the link you found, even if you think it might not work for contributors in other nations? Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nothing about Jester in the story, so just the cover photo and the brief blurb: "Lieutenant Maurice Jester, the Coast Guard skipper on the cover, commands a 165-ft patrol boat like that on page 51. A chief boatswain's mate before the war, he and his crew are waging so successful a war against U-boats that he was recently awarded the Navy Cross for "extraordinary achievement."" Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All passing mentions saying the same thing. I would argue that it is the responsibility of the creator to actually provide sufficient sources that conclusively establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked about five or six of these, what I see is that only one may talk about Jester himself, and it seems likely that the larger context would show the same thing that others more plainly relate: they all relate the incident, often quite briefly, and mentioned him since he was captain of the Icarus. I don't see myself puzzling over some twenty or so snippets trying to work out whether they amount to something, so I have to ask those who are presenting them: first, do any of them provide a basis for a biography of Jester, and second, failing that, does any of them supply any information about the incident or Jester which we do not already record? As far as I can tell, the answer to both questions is "no"; none of the ones I looked at offered any hope of a positive answer to either question. And given that, merger makes more sense, and I could, right now, take the two articles and perform the merger without increasing the length of the section in the Icarus article by more than a few sentences. If one you does expand Jester's article enough to necessitate its independent existence, I would be happy to back down on this, but nobody is doing it, and I feel no need to believe it can be done until it is done; meanwhile, treating his Navy Cross as requiring us to grant him the additional honor of his own article in WP is, I would submit, not the way a reference work ought to be written. Mangoe (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mztourist says "I would argue that it is the responsibility of the creator to actually provide sufficient sources that conclusively establish notability."
Well, the article creator (me) did think that making the cover of Life magazine, getting promoted, being awarded the Navy Cross, and having a $65 million dollar vessel named in your honor, was enough to establish notability.
However, I think Mztourist's interpretation of our policies is a very risky one.
  • First WP:OWN says those who add new content, like article creators, don't own it. One thing that means is they shouldn't edit war with later contributors, who reword their original prose. But, another thing it means is that those who started articles are under no more obligation than anyone else to make sure the content they created gets updated so it measures up to the wikipedia's standards, if its inclusion standards tighten.
  • The wikipedia's inclusion standards have been tightening. The wikipedia has many articles that easily met its standards, at the time they were started, which do not measure up to the current standards. That could mean two things. It could mean that the underlying topic of those articles falls short of the current standards. Or, it could mean that while the underlying topic of the article measures up, it requires work to update the actual article to todays's standards.
  • Sorry, Mztourist, but I think this is why nominators, like you, absolutely must make a meaningful effort to comply with WP:BEFORE before you initiate each and every AFD on the articles you nominate.
  • WP:BLPPROD requires articles on BLP individuals to have at least one meaningful reference. I think this means, because we have stricter rules on BLP articles than other articles, a BLP article without at least one meaningful reference can be nominated for deletion, without a meaningful BEFORE search.
  • So, suppose you come across an article that easily measured up to our inclusion standards, at the time it was started, but that was in a time of looser standards, and you think it falls short today. You conduct your meaningful web search, conclude the article could be beefed up to meet today's standards, and then? Then you do no nominate it for deletion. I think your policy compliant choices are:
  1. Your recent web search has found the references you need, so go fix it yourself;
  2. Voice your concerns on the talk page, link to references you think are missing; state which passages you think lapse from NPOV, or some other policy;
  3. Voice your concern on the user talk page of the article creator or other prolific contributor;
  4. Use editorial tags, like ((cn)), to signal your concerns to others;
  5. Raise your concerns on a wider fora, like the talk page of the military history project, BLPN, RSN etc.;
  6. Do nothing more than put the article on your watchlist, and make a mental note to chime in if someone else voices concerns similar to yours.
  7. You even get to do nothing, as you have other fish to fry.
However, to repeat my main point, I think when your meaningful BEFORE search, fairly considered, leads you to conclude an article's underlying topic is notable, you do not then still nominate it for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the responsibility of the article creator, in this case you, to find and incorporate the SIGCOV in multiple RS when they create the article clearly showing that WP:GNG is met. I don't believe that inclusion standards have tightened substantially since 2016 when you first created the page. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mztourist, my gratitude for this reply? Consider it proportional to the effort you made to address my counter-arguments. Remember your obligations under WP:BATTLEGROUND please. Geo Swan (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments above were WP:TLDR, you're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. As can be seen opinions are split on Jester, basically whether or not Life gets him over the line on SIGCOV, meanwhile almost all the other ship namesake AFDs are trending to redirect/merge. Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 29 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 (☎) 00:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above - wolf 01:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever additional sources people have been dredging up, the fundamental problem remains: none of them are contain additional biographical information, and indeed, so far I've see next to no new information about the one notable incident itself. I still see no reason not to merge this article into the one on the cutter. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me? Mangoe, could you be specific about what you think is missing? I think DGG explained this best. The main thing that makes an individual notable is what they did. The name of their spouse, where they attended high school? That's pretty trivial isn't it?

    Geber was a deservedly famous Arabic scholar, from the period when each new copy of a book required a somebody like a monk to sit down and manually transcribe it, letter by letter.

    False Geber was notable impostor. Impostors were a known phenomenon back then. New unknown authors, who wanted their book copied, would attribute their brand new work to a famous author, making it much more likely to be recopied. The individual known as False Geber is an exception.

    Isaac Asimov chose to include him in his Biographical Dictionary of Scientist. Asimov thought he was one of the 1000 most influential scientists of all time because the book he attributed to Geber was the first to contain instructions on how to prepare Sulfuric Acid, our first really strong acid.

    We know nothing about False Geber. We don't know where they lived, or even exactly when they lived. We don't know their religion, or their occupation. All we know about them is that they played a key role in the development of Chemistry. Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Geo Swan "The main thing that makes an individual notable is what they did." is incorrect, GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Unless a subject specific guideline applies, notability is determined by coverage of what they did. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline pages all read at the top: "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Its not an absolute law. Someone is notable for what they did, not for the coverage. The coverage is just one way of proving something is noteworthy, not the only way. Dream Focus 07:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong, even if what they did was unremarkable if they had SIGCOV in multiple RS they're notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and specific guidelines are different, and need to be read in pari materia. WP:Notability#Subject-specific notability guidelines. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and as SOLDIER is just an Essay, GNG still applies. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 31 January 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