Deletion of Richard Dixon (USCG)

Comment: The Coast Guard Medal is not a "civilian" award as alleged by GeoSwan.  The U.S.C.G. is an active duty military service, the same as the Army, Navy, or Air Force.  The award, as clearly shown by the WP article, is a military award, that is just barely above the Purple Heart.  Way too many people get this, and the other services' equivalent award, for it to be viable for notability by itself.  I argue all that time that  is just an essay and I still believe that--but this award is way too common to confer notability, regardless of assertions to the contrary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: I would point out that the article is thin on |reliable secondary sources that are |independent of the subject.  Ref 1 is a USCG blog, and presumably reliable, but is connected to the subject, and more akin to a press release than a secondary source.  Ref 2 has the same issues.  Ref 3 is a copy of Ref 4, which is a primary source.  Further, Ref 3 is a fan website, and not necessarily a reliable source.  Ref 5 is a press release from the USCG, and doesn't even mention Dixon.  Ref 6 is a reliable secondary source, but only mentions Dixon in passing.  None of this establishes |notability.  You've got exactly one secondary source that is reliable, that does not discuss the subject of the article.  The boat isn't even afloat (or for that matter, under construction that I can tell).  If this even approaches notability, it is 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:IS||WP:NN||WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: as discussed on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question|MILHIST talk page to the article about the vessel which the subject will be the namesake of (USCGC Richard Dixon (WPC 1113)). The question here is notability. The subject has received coverage, but https://www.google.com/search?q=Richard+Dixon&aq=f&oq=Richard+Dixon&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3j62l2.649&sugexp=chrome,mod=10&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=Coast+guard+%22Richard+Dixon%22&oq=Coast+guard+%22Richard+Dixon%22&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.3069.8154.1.8530.14.14.0.0.0.2.146.1263.12j2.14.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.Y0vwnhz1-zM&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41018144,d.cGE&fp=e43332cbcd29e018&biw=903&bih=430 mainly from sites connected to the service which he was in, so those would be considered |primary sources. The question arises that the subject has received ''significant coverage'' from those primary sources, but mainly passing mention from other sources. Moreover, the subject has received a notable award, so why does the subject not pass ? The reason for that is within the context of military notability, there are many awards (for instance the National Defense Service Medal is itself notable) however there has been a |consensus within the editing community that focuses on military history that only single awards of the highest medal for valor (such as the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor) or multiple awards of a second level medal for valor (such as the Air Force Cross (United States)|Air Force Cross or the Distinguished Conduct Star) would be considered notable within the military context; this is spelled out in . As the subject of this article has only been verified to have received the Coast Guard Medal twice, it is not sufficient for the subject to have an independent biography article. That being said the ship which will be named for him, will be considered notable per , and thus the content about the subject should be included in that future article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCE||WP:ANYBIO||WP:CON||WP:SOLDIER||WP:MILUNIT)