Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Holmes (mercenary)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Rob's abstention reads on the deleterious side since the article hasn't been expanded at all, but is nevertheless not a requst to delete the article. The author gets to want to keep their article, since they took the time to participate in its AfD. -Splash talk 22:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

John Holmes (mercenary)
Non-notable 19th century mercenary colonel who participated in a relativly obscure Anglo-Indian conflict. The article gives no indication as to why this Holmes deserves an article. Delete. Peter Isotalo 13:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable, and I think not verifiable either (which is worse). If he has a unique story that can be verified and fully developed, I would reconsider.  --rob 14:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Probable hoax, given who the real John Holmes is. — Phil Welch 21:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no indication of notability unless he had a foot-long you-know-what. Barno 00:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not delete. It is not a hoax, and it is verifiable. The service of John Holmes in the Sikh army is known and documented, see e.g. here and here. The stub should be further developed though... Havard 12:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is not a valid argument to keep, Havard. It's a requirement that must be fulfilled, and just because you've proven it's not a hoax, does not mean it's notable enough to keep. Please explain why we need to keep this article. / Peter Isotalo 09:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was answering Thivierr and Phil on the unverifiable/hoax issues, not using it as an argument. As I said, I agree the stub needs some expanding. ~ Havard
 * There's still the problem that nothing indicates why the guy is notable enough to deserve an article. This one just seems like one of tens of thousands of non-notable colonels throughout British history. / Peter Isotalo 10:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If he fought *against* the British side, that might make him different from other Brits in the same place and time (though he was just part British). However, its not clear to me who was on who's side at what time.  --rob 11:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. He was a British officer who fought against the British. ~ Havard 11:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain: I can now beleive the guy did actually exist, but I still know nothing about the person. I don't see the notability. But, there seems an itty bit of potential for historic signficance or at least interest in the person.  I think somebody has to substantially expand the article if they want it to survive.  --rob 12:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a notable historical figurepossibly of interest to someone reading an encyclopedia. --Apyule 05:26, 22 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.