Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. Creamer

: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 merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

=[[:William W. Creamer]]=

:{{la|William W. Creamer}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=William W. Creamer}})

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG as a one-time recipient of the Navy Cross. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep. Fuerwea (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

::User:Fuerwea has been globally locked. Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep A warship was named after him which is a "significant award or honor" and so passes WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Redirect to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Fails WP:SOLDIER (Ensign posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor" and ship wasn't even completed) and WP:GNG. No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II 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." The article as a stand alone will receive minimal readership, but as part of the target will receive much more. There is no benefit to fragmenting the content. I ce'd the article to help with the merge but it still will need trimming. // Timothy :: talk 15:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Keep for reasons cited by user:Andrew Davidson If not, Redirect and MERGE to VT-8#Midway, which is a better fit than the generic List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. In fact, I have found lots of sources that support that narrative and resolution. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge to List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Merge into List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II per Mztourist. Cavalryman (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC).
Merge into List of Navy Cross recipients for World War II. Having a ship named after you is simply a political decision, having nothing to do with notability. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

: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.