Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Gonzaga Mendez Jr.

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. (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Gonzaga Mendez Jr.

[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. Was awarded the second-highest award once and was awarded a very common award three times. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his awards do not actually rise to the level of meeting our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) which is the United States Army's second highest military decoration, after the Medal of Honor, for soldiers who display extraordinary heroism in combat with an armed enemy force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs)
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. One award of the Distinguished Service Cross (United States) doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It totally wrong that a soldier must be awarded more then one Distinguished Service Cross (United States) to be notable. The soldier was a hero and that makes him notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is related discussion about this nomination here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marine_69-71#Nomination_of_Jorge_Otero_Barreto_for_deletion Mercy11 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, which in this case you specifically named in my "talk" page "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: G'day, some of this coverage might be relevant for assessing against the WP:GNG: [1] (Washington Post), [2] (Washington Post), [3] (Arlington Cemetery), [4] (Fairfax County Public Schools), [5] (Fairfax Times), [6] (a few Google Books mentions). I vaguely remember him being mentioned in Ryan's A Bridge Too Far but unfortunately I don't have my copy to check anymore. Can anyone else confirm or deny? I am a little concerned that the article might closely paraphrase one of these sources (Pearson), though, so it would probably need attribution in the article with quotes etc if kept. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content from a related discussion page.

The relevant information below comes from the WP page here

I view this and the above AfD's as a sudden agenda of personal attacks on the articles which are about "Hispanic" war heroes. This never happened before and what is cited as a reason for the nominations is an essay not policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have created a number of pages about people who do not satisfy WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG and therefore are not notable. Being the first Puerto Rican/Hispanic to do X does not establish notability. That's why these pages are being put up for deletion. Mztourist (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Really? So it is about the pages that I created and not what others have created? Let me tell you the person who invented the criteria that to become notable a hero needs to be "awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times" wasn't thinking right. Many of those who were awarded the second highest military decoration have later been awarded the Medal of Honor. The only difference being the name of the award, not the actions which made the person notable. Another thing, being the "first" to do X of any race or ethnicity, in this case you specifically name "Puerto Rican/Hispanic", makes that person notable and should not be omitted from this encyclopedia, as all to often has happened in our history books. I ask myself, what is the use of continuing in this project when after so many years the articles which have been created with hard work following the guidelines come under attack and are nominated for deletion? Tony the Marine (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with Tony. Unless this is an approved decision to remove every 'minor' American hero regardless of background from the encyclopedia then it should not begin with minority Americans. They are underrepresented in American history as it is. Let them be the last to be removed if at all.Dmercado (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SOLDIER and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90#Notability_Military_Biography. While WP:SOLDIER is just an Essay it sets out presumptions as to military notability, which if the person has SIGCOV in multiple RS means that they deserve a page. "The soldier was a hero and as such that makes him notable" is entirely the sort of argument that WP:SOLDIER sought to address. If someone is later awarded the Medal of Honor then a page can be created for them then. GNG applies to everyone regardless of nationality and User:Marine 69-71 as an Admin should know that. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The first link is to an essay and the second link is to opinions and not to Wikipedias policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its a consensus, you are welcome to try to argue it at AFD or elsewhere.Mztourist (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Letter and User:Mztourist seem to be supporting each other's delete nominations: one nominating the article for delete and the other user quickly agreeing to its deletion. I'll explain, (from what I've spotchecked) when User:Letter nominates the soldier article for deletion, Mztourist agrees on delete and vice versa. To nomination closer: If anything, remember that the delete is not a "count" vote. The two users agreeing on all deletion of specific soldier article nominations seems strange to me. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I have been accused of "canvassing" when it seems as if the two users mentioned have teamed up to eliminate articles about our heroes only because according to an essay they were not notable for being awarded one of the second highest military decoration of the United States. Instead it should be taken into account that the heroic actions that they made would in another case merit the Medal of Honor. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A nomination using the WP:NSOLDIER essay as a delete criteria? Since when do we make delete decisions based on an WP:SPS as non-notable as a WP essay? What is a WP essay if it isn't a piece of writing expressing an editor's personal POV with no oversight by a notable editorial board of SMEs nor peer-reviewed by experts qualified in the branch on knowledge in question? I frown upon arguments made based on WP essays as if they were anything more than someone's desperate attempt to make his/her views known at WP after failing to get his/her ideas approved by the community at large and after failing to get those ideas into one of WP's [{WP:PG]]. Mercy11 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should familiarize yourself with the criteria used in assessing Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mztourist: rather than insulting editors' intelligence or reading ability, you should have already stepped aside and allow the nomination to run its course rather than jumping in everytime an editor makes a comment you don't like. Mercy11 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mercy11 those who developed and apply WP:SOLDIER were insulted and you decided to paste an irrelevant Talk Page discussion on multiple pages. Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, come on. This is a very well-written and well-sourced article about a decorated veteran who has a town square named after him. Clearly, he did something with his life, even if he's been dead for twenty years; have we really got nothing better to do with ours than argue about this? jp×g 10:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus exists currently, but there's some outstanding (ie. non-resolved) discussion points above that could do with some more air if the participants so desire.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stop using consensus-lacking essays as deletion criteria. This needs an RfC. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - going by the nominator's own criteria, the Essay on WP:SOLDIER, a soldier is notable if they "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign; ..." which this soldier did - this soldier was involved in a counterattack of the notable Battle of the Bulge and he also led his soldier's on another notable battle, Operation Market Garden. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems significant enough to me Durindaljb (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a well-sourced or well-written article, contrary to claims above. The article isn't even clear about the rank Mendez held when he won his DSC or the Bronze Stars. In fact, it seems more like a slight rework of the arlingtoncemetery.net post on him, which in turn claims to be from "a contemporary press report"...which remains unsourced. Intothat darkness 20:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2001/09/23/army-col-louis-mendez-jr/2c1924de-e8fb-4a25-b92c-4bf1f0f48b4d/ is significant coverage in a reliable source about him. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/highschool/2018/04/27/confederate-general-makes-last-stand-high-school-teams/545015002/ calls him a war hero, and mentions him fighting "for justice and equality" in the educational system. Dream Focus 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked sources are all essentially the same article repackaged. I would support a keep if this article were reworked to focus more on his verifiable work with the education system (including sources that didn't read almost exactly the same). Intothat darkness 02:44, 1 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.