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: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
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
    ]
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]
  • Keep [1] Significant coverage of him in that reliable source. How many soldiers get into a Veterans Hall of Fame? And the Silver Star is a notable and well known award. The coverage of him being interviewed about his experiences on various news media is enough to pass the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 03:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and the canvassing starts. Onel5969 TT me 03:55, 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:NOTAMEMORIAL.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Gaarmyvet: Thanks for the information. I find many references to the awards of McHugh - some not RS, however I do not suspect Stolen Valor. I am curious about the presidential unit citations and other awards that you have mentioned. Here is another non RS reference to the many awards. My hope is that these clues may lead us to RS of the awards. I think the FB post was taken from this RS. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clarityfiend:, I never meant to suggest stolen valor and regret if what I wrote seemed like it. It did occur to me after I had checked out yesterday that the "Fort Eger Badge" could be the Fourragère (Belgian), which is still a unit award not representing any personal accomplishment.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 23:27, 7 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 (
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
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
]
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: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]
  • Delete Not particularly noteworthy, I dont see anything in the article that makes him stand out from thousands of other soldiers that would justify a stand-alone article. Did his bit for the country gained a few gongs and returned to an unremarkable life at home. MilborneOne (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Atsme's arguments on the recognitions that he has received. Behindthekeys (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He passes
    WP:GNG with coverage in multiple reliable sources like his obituary in The Queens Courier, CBS and a National TV appearance on Fox. This article meets the general notability guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:GNG guidlines.Djflem (talk) 07:46, 10 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"