Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Cross


 * 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Bill Cross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Single source is obituary. Does not pass WP:GNG Idolwyld (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I am not seeing WP:GNG. buidhe 08:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, honorable but non-notable career. Mztourist (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Fails SOLDIER but meets the GNG as having received "significant coverage [detailed Daily Telegraph obituary] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as well as coverage in other sources such as the BBC and The Times. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obit in major national newspaper = notability. We have always held this to be true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that an obituary in a major national newspaper establishes notability? Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Longstanding precedent for many years. You frankly do need to know these things before you nominate articles for deletion or comment on AfDs. But it's also common sense: if a person is deemed notable enough for an obit in a major national newspaper than how could they possibly not be notable enough for Wikipedia, which has articles on many people who would never have obits in such newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternatively there's a single source, for an honourable, but otherwise unnotable career in the armed forces, not apparently specifically distinguished or storied career that's not above and beyond many of his generation, or say, many other Chelsea Pensioners, without articles.Idolwyld (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So why do you think one of the main national newspapers decided to publish an obit for him? Because they don't publish obits for non-notable people and they publish obits for far, far fewer people than we write articles for. How very arrogant of Wikipedia to think we know better than them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "longstanding precedent" that's never been put in a policy apparently, I don't accept that or your put-down. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There are all sorts of reasons a newspaper might publish something. That‘S why we don’t rely on one source.Idolwyld (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Newspapers of record in the UK only publish obits of people they consider to be notable. That means we should consider them to be notable, as they are newspapers of record. I'm surprised you don't consider longstanding precedent to be important, given that's what mostly governs what we do at AfD and always has done. Much of it has never been recorded in policy. But policy is not the be all and end all on Wikipedia. Consensus is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Longstanding precedent is usually codified in policy so everyone can access it and is aware of it. If its not in policy then its open to debate, that's why there are extensive notability guidelines, which do not include having an obit in a major newspaper. So I don't agree that necessarily establishes notability despite your assertion that its a "longstanding precedent" Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment He has a very impressive collection of medals. Can we detail them properly in the article with the ribbons. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Necrothesp, the Telegraph is a paper of record, and his war achievements are extraordinary. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Are his war achievements extraordinary? that seems like hyperbole. 156k men landed on day one in Normandy, and a smaller but significant numberon the other operations mentioned - simply being there doesn't make him notable Idolwyld (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:is there any national distinction about him? The longest period of army service credited to a non-commissioned British soldier in the 20th century is 47 years for a man who retired in 1967 (IIRC from Soldier magazine article in 1970s).Cloptonson (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Necrothesp....Whispyhistory (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD regularly holds that an obit in a major newspaper is more than enough to establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . - Flori4nK T A L K 12:12, 28 May 2020 (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.