Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Plunkett


 * 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 delete. Per consensus Philg88 ♦talk 06:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Plunkett

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. The main source used in the article appears to be a CV from a genealogy website, and is the only support for personal information in the article. A second source confirms only that Dorman Long & Co were contractors for the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The third source only supports use of Radium bombs as treatment for cancerous growths. Other than the CV, which is a primary source, there is no support for the claim of his involvement in the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which seems the main "claim to fame". Internet and other searches find other Plunketts, but not this one, indicating that the subject fails to pass WP:GNG.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete insufficient evidence to back claims in article. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I guess WP:1E would apply if those claims are true, and the bridge is more notable of these two... Ceosad (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears from the article that he had only a minor role in designing the bridge, & there sems no other basis for notability  DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I suppose as I unfortunately found nothing at all and that's not surprising but that also means there's no obvious better improvement. I will say change to disambiguation page afterwards for the other two but simply not include this perhaps (I'm willing to start the dab page myself). SwisterTwister   talk  05:02, 30 November 2015 (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.