Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McCoy Reynolds

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 USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy Reynolds

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another bio of a soldier who has a ship named after him. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. A merge/redirect to USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440) is best. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge as above, no info found beyond rehashes of the same bio. Deunanknute (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440). Once again, no reason for notability apart from a ship being named after him, which is common practice in the USN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to USS McCoy Reynolds (DE-440) as suggested above. Subject had received passing mention in some reliable sources, but none which I would consider in-depth, therefore the subject does not pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the subject does not meet any of the criteria set forth in WP:SOLDIER. That being said, the subject had a notable vessel named after him, and a biography about the namesake of that vessel would be a good redirect target of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2015 (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.