Deletion of John T. Eversole

Comment: to USS Eversole (DE-404) per above. Doesn't pass for a stand alone article, but '''sourced''' content could improve the target article, overall it will be less fragmented, and give the content more readership. Per , ''"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. &nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: to USS Eversole (DE-404) for the same reasons as all these other Navy Cross honorees. In a sense, it's a reverse case of , as nobody would seriously have considered him worthy of his own article if the ships hadn't been named after him. The Navy Cross is a second tier valor medal, and in this case it is more evident than ever that there's nothing to say beyond a very short action description which is certainly already in the ship articles. We do not need to multiply the number of articles simply to pay tribute to people; indeed, we ''shouldn't'' do so. A redirect to the the very short narrative in the ship article is enough to ''inform'' readers
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: to USS Eversole (DE-404). Fails  (Ltjg posthumously awarded a Navy Cross. Having a ship named after him during WWII is not a "significant award or honor". the second ship was named after the first which was sunk in action, not after him) and . No SIGCOV in multiple RS so not notable
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:GNG)

Comment: Warships are expensive.  Being chosen as a namesake of an expensive naval vessel is a form of peer recognition.  We acknowledge that peer recognition is a strong notability factor in other fields, like , and the same should hold true here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ACADEMIC)