Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Borum

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 redirect to USS Borum (DE-790). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Borum

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Borum (DE-790). Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ltjg with no significant award. 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) 03:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Borum (DE-790). I concur he doesn't meet NBIO/NSOLDIER but there is some mergeable content here (sadly there are next to no inline refs in the article, but we can probably AGF the content...). The ship can have a section about its non-notable namesake.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Borum (DE-790) 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." // Timothy :: talk 06:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having one of roughly 500 destroyer escorts built named after you is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to USS Borum (DE-790), 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) 14:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 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/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 considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.

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 (☎) 13:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I would have said merge, but there is really nothing to merge to USS Borum (DE-790), other than the sentence I just added. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If he's only notable for having a ship named after him,then a section in the ship article is much more suitable. Nigej (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to USS Borum (DE-790), fails GNG. Cavalryman (talk) 01:36, 2 February 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.