Talk:William Trump

{{prod}}

Another contributor placed a {{prod}} on this article -- asserting, in part, that this article didn't cite "independent references". A few days ago they placed a {{prod}} on Richard Dixon (USCG), who, like William Trump, had a Sentinel class cutter named after him. All Coast Guard Sentinel class cutters are named after members of the Coast Guard, or its precursor services, who have been recognized for their heroism.

That contributor and I had a disagreement as to whether articles that cover an individual, drafted by the organization they were once a member of, could be considered "independent".

I asked for third party opinions at WP:RSN#Independent sources. I informed the tagger, who, without informing anyone at that first discussion, asked for the opinions of his or her colleagues, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question.

In my opinion, a consensus as to whether Dixon was dependent or independent of the Coast Guard references has not been reached. In my opinion, that makes it premature to tag a second article with a prod with the same justification as the first.

I am going to assume that asking for the opinion of his or her colleagues at a second forum, when I had already raised the issue at WP:RSN was not a conscious effort to go "WP:Forum shopping", merely an innocent mistake.

I presume the Tampa Bay Times is the one reference they acknowledge as "independent". For what it is worth Military Times's about page explicitly described itself as: "The trusted, independent source for news and information for the military community " If the military in the title of this publication tricked them into thinking it was a government publication they were mistaken. The about page of the Defense Media Network also describes itself as an independent publication. Geo Swan (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the {{prod}}. As above I continue to think the prod was based on an overly strict interpretation of what is or isn't an "independent reference". Geo Swan (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the article should be kept. See below. Andrewa (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

As an article for the ship has not been created, perhaps it would be best for this article to be made into a redirect to Sentinel class cutter, until the time when the ship's article is created. This would preserve a history, including a record of the reliable sources, of this article that can be later used on the article about the ship.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dixon (USCG) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question, your plan sounds the best. Bgwhite (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There's no support here for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

William Trump → USCGC William Trump (WPC 1112) – Subject not notable per WP:SOLDIER; ship notable per WP:MILUNIT. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with this suggested move, for multiple reasons:

1. WP:COATRACK -- fans of the COATRACK essay could easily say "the title of this article says it is about the vessel USCGC William Trump, but the actual article is really about the namesake William Trump.
2. I am concerned that this nomination is based on an unsupported fringe interpretation of notability. Almost none of our biographical articles are about individuals who are notable only for a single event. By longstanding tradition, winning a Pullitzer, or Nobel Prize, winning an Olympic event, winning an Oscar, sitting in your national legislature, or being the recipient of your nation's highest award for bravery are considered events sufficient to make an individual notable all by themselves.

   But these are exceptional cases.

   Nominator keeps repeating that Trump is not notable per WP:SOLDIER. This is incorrect. More correctly WP:SOLDIER says Trump would not be notable solely for being awarded a Silver Star. That is a very different statement. Most biographical articles are about individuals whose notability was based on multiple factors. Trump's courage is also being recognized by having a $50 million vessel named after him.

   Our nominator has made assertion here on this talk page, and elsewhere, that strongly imply they hold the position any award that does not confer total notability confers zero notability. This both doesn't make sense and is counter to a decade of prior notability determinations.

3. So far only the Sentinel class cutters that have been launched have had some anything unique published particularly about them. So far there is nothing unique to say about the unlaunched vessels. So they are adequately covered in the Sentinel class cutter article. If and when references covers the launch, or the commissioning, of the USCGC William Trump then it will be worthwhile to use those references to break out a separate article about the vessel. If the launch or commissioning aren't covered, it would make sense to wait until there is coverage of the vessel making a drug bust, or rescuing some boaters.

   There have been some very committed contributors who made series of articles that really didn't say anything, that all ended up being deleted. There was a series of thousands of articles on Diplomatic relations between X and Y, where X and Y were two random nation-states. For most of those stubs no references existed to show scholars or journalists had ever written about relations between those two nations, and almost all of those articles ended up being deleted. Articles about cutters where there is nothing to say about them that isn't covered in the article about the class are of no more value than those diplomatic stubs. Geo Swan (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Scope of the article is the soldier. I note also that despite what is said above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide is an essay not a guideline, and in any case this article seems to meet its notability criteria... it spells out some categories of people who do and some of people who don't, but this soldier meets neither set of criteria, and does appear to easily satisfy the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people) to which the essay refers. Suggest creating a redirect to the relevant section from the proposed new title. Andrewa (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.