Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James F. Adams

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2020 October 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: A–F#A. SNGs do not trump GNG. Every Wikipedia article needs to pass GNG. SNGs are simply a shortcut that presumes that sources exist to satisfy GNG when a topic satisfies the SNG. Therefore, since no Keep voter successfully refuted the argument that the subject fails GNG, this individual is not eligible for a standalone article. However, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't have information about this individual in other articles. Feel free to merge any info from the revision history of this article into the list article. ‑Scottywong | [confer] || 22:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Adams

[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)

Given that WP:SOLDIER is a WP:ESSAY, not a WP:SNG, the article fails WP:GNG, in particular multiple reliable secondary sources. The article is currently only referenced by a link to the United States Army Center of Military History website. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that criteria for receiving the Medal of Honor has significantly changed since the Civil War. While it technically might meet the wording of the NSOLDIER essay, it does not fulfill its intended meaning. // Timothy :: talk 16:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I fixed the a broken link in refs so others can see what it says. // Timothy :: talk 16:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The MOH was given out to thousands of people who did little of note prior to the revision of the guidelines. He does not appear to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but when they revised the guidelines, they chose to strike almost 1/3 of the medals that had been awarded after considering all that had been awarded during the war. While most of those cancelled were mistakenly awarded to the 27th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment, the fact is that the board determined Adams' MOH to be worthy ([1]). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet notability guidelines. I found sources such as this [2]. He is mentioned in one sentence in West Virginia and the Civil War: Mountaineers Are Always Free p.229 // Timothy :: talk 17:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the MoH satisfies #1 of the WP:SOLDIER essay, he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS so failing WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_American_Civil_War_Medal_of_Honor_recipients:_A–F#A where the appropriate details belong. --Lockley (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_American_Civil_War_Medal_of_Honor_recipients:_A–F#A. Nika2020 (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:SOLDIER. I see that we're moving from trying to get generals deleted (failed) to trying to get recipients of the highest decoration for gallantry deleted. What fun! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:SOLDIER references WP:GNG in the opening sentence where it reads "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they ... " WP:SOLDIER does not say an individual is notable, it only assumes it. In essence, if the criteria of WP:GNG are not met, the assumptions made in WP:SOLDIER are irrelevant and the article is to be deleted. Is that not the case? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A presumption of notability is not a presumption of non-notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MisterBee1966, You are completely correct; a presumption is merely an assumption, not a guarantee that an article is notable. This is true even for WP:GNG, per the lead of WP:N where it links to the definition WP uses for presumption, specifically that it is a Rebuttable presumption, that can be shown to be incorrect based on factors such as WP:V, WP:WWIN, WP:LASTING, WP:1E, and many others.

The best test for notability is does the subject meet WP:SIGCOV; are there multiple WP:RS, that address the subject directly and in depth and are the sources used impacted by something such as WP:V, WP:WWIN, WP:LASTING, or WP:1E.

It's also important to remember that Essays, such as WP:NSOLDIER are opinions, nothing more. Anyone can write an essay on notability. People can consider them, but they do not override guidelines or policies. Often editors confuse this or try and state that something is notable and must be kept because it meets an essay, when it is not notable based on guidelines. Essays are points to consider, not guidelines that should be followed.

Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 23:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TimothyBlue for the thorough explanation. Leaving the fact that WP:SOLDIER is only an essay aside, the presumption of notability can be contested by a kind of litmus test (WP:SIGCOV; are there multiple WP:RS...) which means the burden of proof lies with editors opting for Wikipedia-inclusion. For my better understanding, is the reverse psychology applicable here? Meaning, do Wikipedia guidelines require evidence for non-notability? In essence, Wikipedia-inclusion has to be justified, Wikipedia-exclusion does not, if the litmus test fails. Cheers and more best wishes MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but RfC. In practice, we have always kept articles on Medal of Honor recipients as passing WP:SOLDIER with flying colors, as it were. However, I agree that most of these people really don't have enough coverage for a stand-alone article (and I've created several similar ones). 40% of MOHs were given out in the ACW, by the way. I don't think there's any way this AfD can generate consensus on its own to delete a recipient of the most prestigious personal military decoration in the United States. That's a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO #1 if you're looking for a guideline behind this. An RfC is the appropriate place to decide whether to merge/redirect these stubby articles to the list of ACW MOH recipients or keep them as is – Wikipedia is not paper and there's nothing wrong with a stub after all. In the absence of a clear consensus on the wider issue, this article should be kept. Deletion is clearly inappropriate. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supporting the views expressed by Eddie891. Northern Escapee (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NSOLDIER#1 Medal of Honor is America's highest military award. Wm335td (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As is stated above, the Medal of Honor during the Civil War is not the same as the Medal of Honor we know today. The criteria was completely changed. Keep votes based on this have a misunderstanding of the NSOLDIER essay and the history of the Medal of Honor. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to clarify when the MOH criteria was changed? AFAIK the only major time the criteria was changed was in 1917, and they reviewed all Medals of Honor to that point, so it's incorrect to state that an ACW MOH is not the same as one awarded after. Also, NSOLDIER says nothing about this so it's you misunderstanding the essay, which blanket-applies to all MOH recipients as is currently phrased. Further, WP:ANYBIO#1 (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) is met, something you have yet to address. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, see below (bolding mine)
- re: ANYBIO#2, above these criteria it states: "A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using BLP sources for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion." "May" does not mean "Is".
- re: NSOLDIER
  - A presumption is not a guarantee of notability, "It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage". In this case there is not sufficient coverage as there would be for later recipients because the award does not have the same meaning post-revision. This is obvious from the content of the article.
  - As you admit, the criteria for the Medal was completely revised and what it was during the Civil War is not what it is today. See Chapter 1, The Medal of Honor: The Evolution of America's Highest Military Decoration by Dwight S. Mears (available on JSTOR). It is clear from the description of the medal during the Civil War, it does not meet NSOLDIER.
// Timothy :: talk 18:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to second what Timothy is saying. WP:GNG supersedes WP:SOLDIER, which is only an essay. Additionally, WP:ANYBIO starts with saying "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The basic criteria of WP:BIO starts with "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The question is therefore all about significant coverage in multiple and reliable sources! Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2020 (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.