Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McHugh Sr.

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time, and evidence of sufficient discussion of the subject in reliable sources that inclusion is not clearly impermissible. Based on the course and high participation of the discussion, it is not apparent that relisting would generate any further clarity. BD2412 T 14:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John McHugh Sr.

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

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

While he has received some recent coverage due to his longevity, don't think he meets WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus
  • Keep Easily passes GNG with WP:RSs also passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. In war he was highly decorated. Two of his awards were the Silver Star and Bronze Star.
Additional significant awards and honors
  1. The State of New York placed him in its Veterans Hall of Fame.
  2. His hometown Whitestone, New York named a street in honor of McHugh. Lightburst (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to be clear, I think that if you get Silver Star, or the Navy Cross (or the comparable in the other branches), that should be automatic notability. I mean for crying out loud a person who plays a single professional game of soccer is notable and someone who actually did something valiant and noble isn't (hell, I think any Bronze Star recipient is eminently more notable than any sports player)? Unfortunately, however, those aren't the standards WP has. And unfortunately the NYS Veteran's Hall of Fame doesn't qualify either.Onel5969 TT me 02:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sour Grapes: I am sorry about my !voting delete on the AfDs for articles you started about mobile home parks and other WP:GEOLAND fails. 1, 2, 3 . I hope this AfD nomination is not an example of Sour grapes. The subject passes both GNG and ANYBIO as I have stated. Lightburst (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your disingenuous personal attack above is completely worthless. I had prodded this back in June, and had let the article develop over the intervening months. Your recent edits yesterday and today had it pop up on my watchlist, which is when I took another look at it. Although it is curious how you targeted those AfD's you mention above without any prior involvement in Arizona geo articles. Onel5969 TT me 03:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that an AFD is a personal attack is not coming close to assuming good faith. You should probably apologize for that. ApLundell (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SOLDIER clarifies notability requirements for soldiers. I don't believe this person qualifies. The Silver Star has been awarded to well over a 100,000 people and is not our nation's "highest award for valor", which, according to WP:SOLDIER would be required to establish notability on its own. The best claim of notability is the co-named street, which I don't believe is enough. (Notice that co-naming a street after someone is largely ceremonial. The primary name of the street usually doesn't actually change.) ApLundell (talk)
  • Keep Article was previously improved by me per this discussion. Meets WP:GNG. Previous deletion discussion (June 19, 2019 noted on article talk page) does not exist that I can find. If it does, serial deletion discussions are just a waste of valuable editor time. Indeed, given the state and sourcing of this article, there was not even pretextual compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:Canvassing claim, made without supportable evidence, should be withdrawn. It seems like SOP for User:onel5969, so I won't further burden this discussion by suggesting that an apology is in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I researched and worked on this article previously, and would not have done so if I didn't think it was worth keeping. It's on my watchlist. Apparently it was proded before by the nom, and now months later the nom is AfDing it during ongoing animosities with the creator. Spice is life I guess. Anyway, I think there are enough sources for GNG, and his significance is demonstrated. Most vets don't have this kind of recognition. -- GreenC 14:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in McHugh's biography justifies a page under WP:SOLDIER. As near as I can tell, McHugh is not in the New York Veterans Hall of Fame (if there is one); he's in the New York Senate Veterans Hall of Fame, which from its web page, doesn't appear to have a physical location. I can't find a reference to a "Fort Eger Badge" except on McHugh's page; if such an award exists, please provide a link. McHugh was not and could not be awarded the Presidential Unit Citation; that award is made to a unit and assigned soldiers are allowed to wear it forever. McHugh's page has the flavor of violating WP:NOTAMEMORIAL.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fails SOLDIER and the coverage is mostly local media outlets and a couple of human-interest interviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am not seeing where this gentleman raises to keep status for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and this subject bio has only local interest; trivial. He was not of general rank and just does not meet WP:SOLDIER from what I see; like many of the articles that were "Band of Brothers (miniseries)" members, so to speak, which were deleted. WP:MEMORIAL, also applies here. Kierzek (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: doesn't seem notable. His experience on D-Day, which forms a big chunk of the article and seems to be part of the justification for notability, doesn't appear to be any different from most of the other soldier of the 1st Division that would have landed that day. Also being a recipient of the Silver Star also doesn't justify notability as it is the fourth level gallantry award behind the MoH, DSC and DSM. Zawed (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this gentleman is kept then I see no reason not to have articles on every single other veteran of every war that has ever been fought. Given that would patently be ridiculous I fail to see what his notability is. Even if we take his decorations into account, hundreds of thousands of third-level decorations (like the Silver Star) have been awarded over the centuries. The Bronze Star is so low as not to count as equivalent to a true decoration in most countries (e.g. approximately equivalent to a mention in dispatches in the UK, only probably much more common). They have been handed out like sweets in many campaigns. He doesn't meet the requirements of WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Just typical local coverage for a local hero. You could find similar for any distinguished military veteran anywhere in the world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and per above comments by Necrothesp Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I disagree with the reasons given for deleting. GNG is clearly met as is SOLDIER - #4 Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; - he played a significant role in not one, but three significant major battles: the D Day invasion, the Battle of Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge. He earned a Silver and Bronze Star, was inducted into the State of New York's Veterans Hall of Fame, and has a street named after him. Atsme Talk 📧 04:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carrying a tripod for a weapon that was never used is a "significant role" in a battle? ApLundell (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Parsing words. Storming the bloodiest beach (Omaha) in the most significant (Turning Point Battle)...in addition to participation in the another historically significant turning point, the Battle of the Bulge. Reasonable editors can disagree, however they do not hand out Silver and Bronze stars to insignificant soldiers. Nor do they name streets after them or put them in any Hall of Fame. In any event, my argument is that McHugh passes GNG...the requirement is for reliable sources, and on that measure McHugh passes. The muttering about "local" sources is not mentioned in any guideline for WP:N. Sources only need to be reliable. Per WP:SOLDIER It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"An important role" is not just being there. He apparently did his duty just like millions of other soldiers and that is honorable but not notable.Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article have non-trivial reliable secondary sources? If so the article passes our notability guidelines. As an aside: I had a stepfather who was in WWII. He drove a tank in the Battle of the Bulge. And I have an Uncle who was a Marine in Viet Nam, he was in the Tet Offensive. Nothing is written about either of them in any RSs- they have no gallantry medals, no streets named after them, no hall of fame inductions. Consider keeping the article because it passes the tougher GNG standard. Lightburst (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again I ask, do you think therefore that every single one of the hundreds of thousands who have won a third-level decoration throughout history should have an article? Would that not be utterly ridiculous? Or does this only apply to soldiers from the modern West who have a lot written about them? Given that would be a clear breach of WP:SYSTEMIC, we would surely have to extend it to all others as well. That's every veteran of every war in history. Off you go! Better start now. Alternatively, we could follow our own guidelines and not write articles about non-notable people who have only received routine coverage in local sources. There are very good reasons that we have decided that corporals with one third-level decoration are not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole: The use of hyperbole does not help make your case. I have just described why my soldier stepfather and my soldier uncle do not qualify for an article. On WP we keep articles on subjects where reliable sources are found to show notability. We in fact have articles about complete rubbish on WP because a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is found to keep. We also delete great articles for the same wrongheaded reason. This subject is notable because our guidelines for GNG say it is. Lightburst (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As did hundreds of thousands of others. I assume you agree with articles for every single one of them then? Every soldier who fought in the Battle of Stalingrad. Every veteran of the Battle of Waterloo. Every pilot of the Battle of Britain. Every soldier who went over the top at the Battle of the Somme. All very notable actions. All obviously worthy of articles under your interpretation of WP:SOLDIER. Fighting in a notable action does not equate to playing a significant role in it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp - every year in the US we honor Veterans Day, but we also honor D-Day separately because it was an historic turning point in WWII, and McHugh was not just part of that event as what the oppose arguments are attempting to reduce him to when saying "as did hundreds of thousands of others" while naming various other battles in the war that are not honored separately as is D-Day. McHugh was inducted into the Veterans Hall of Fame because he fought in 3 historic battles. As a member of The Big Red One in the Invasion of Normandy - The invaders were able to establish a beachhead as part of Operation Overlord after a successful "D-Day", the first day of the invasion. He was one of the first and firsts are notable on Wikipedia. This biography clearly passes GNG, N and V. The same would apply to any other Hall of Fame inductees with similar coverage in RS. Atsme Talk 📧 16:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're presumably aware that the USA is not the only country in the world or the only country covered by Wikipedia? In Britain we remember the Battle of Britain, the Somme, etc, etc. And yes, also D-Day. All with many thousands of veterans, many of whom fought in multiple notable battles and were decorated more than McHugh, but still not enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. We don't have halls of fame, however. That's an American thing. That doesn't make our veterans any less notable. Every country has battles they particularly remember. Russia remembers Stalingrad, for instance. And pretty much every veteran has some coverage in local newspapers. If this passes AfD, which would clearly be utterly ridiculous, then I move that every single veteran of every single war of every single country should be entitled to an article. Surely you see how ludicrous that would be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are using the wrong words to describe what is required ...notable sources. I do not know if you are doing it on purpose so I will AGF. Regarding sources, the word that is used over and over in our WP:V policy and in our WP:N guideline is "reliable". And we have multiple reliable non-trivial secondary sources here. Editors who favor deletion will demand something other than what is required by our policies and guidelines. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is just an essay...while I have been citing actual Wikipedia policies, and guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pointedly paying lip service to AGF is not the same as actually assuming good faith. It's closer to the reverse.
Anyway, Your claims about what "editors who favor deletion" are "demanding" are incorrect. Most delete !voters seem to be suggesting that the WP:SOLDIER guideline should be followed. Which, despite your accusations, is a policy-based argument. ApLundell (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_McHugh_Sr.&oldid=1068866114"