Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John R. Borum

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 USS Borum (DE-790). Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Borum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhellocontribs 17:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural hijack and an attempt to make sure that editors who do their job properly won't have time to respond.
This is relevant, and it should be fixed. It is a fact. It is always put into the history. I've never seen this, and it is a direct result of the misbegotten attempt to purge a couple of hundred articles. And all at once, overwhelming the limited number of editors who actively try to save articles, while at the same time trolling those editors to make their job difficult and discourage them with distractions. Apparently it takes no time to resurrect hundreds of Navy Cross/Ship name honorees for deletion. It takes a lot of time to respond and improve all of these articles. This is in fact a second nomination (among many). And given the fact that there is no good faith compliance with WP:Before and a blatant disregard of sources that exist but aren't cited — which do factor in to notability, this sneak attack is (dare I say it) ... a date that will live in infamy. You are distorting the process and rigging the outcomes.
The navy considered him significant enough that they named a warship after him.
Subject meets or exceeds WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before. The protocol is that one should not only look at the present cited sources, but available sources, too. 7&6=thirteen () 13:49, 30 January 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.