Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Honour


 * 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. Consensus is more or less that he just about meets SOLDIER so I'm closing as Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

George Honour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A single award of the DSC is not enough to meet WP:SOLDIER. Neither are the GNG met. Nthep (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not even nearly passing WP:SOLDIER, single primary editor so a COI may be the reason for original creation. -crh23 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Having looked at the sources in more detail, I'm going with Weak keep, as he seems to be sufficiently notable to be mentioned by name in sources not specifically about him, but about the operations he was in. Edited 10:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    22:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I have found several books just through quickly searching on Google Books that discuss his work on D-Day as extensive and significant. We could do with more on what he did for the next 58 years of his life (no RS on that, and the sources I've seen don't mention his profession or family), but I think notability is just about established anyway. Blythwood (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, largely per the sources added by . I'm not sure what criteria the editors who established the WP:SOLDIER criteria would consider a "significant military event" (even the conversation linked to at SOLDIER doesn't discuss that), but the subject does appear to have played an important role in Operation Gambit, and so could potentially meet SOLDIER criteria #5. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2016 (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.