Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Smith (British Army officer)


 * 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. Courcelles 00:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sandy Smith (British Army officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

British Army officer who not notable per WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Might fall foul of WP:oneevent I s'pose, but Smith and his role in Operation Deadstick is well documented in reliable sources (books, not newspapers, so it isn't as if he was a one week story). Ranger Steve   Talk  16:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SOLDIER says (as it has to): "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources." Only considering the books in libraries of people active in Milhist, we probably have hundreds of books that devote significant, independent coverage to all the key Normandy officers.  There's a misreading of WP:ONEEVENT here; we're not going to get rid of our article on Nathan Hale, who was only notable for one event.  The point of WP:ONEEVENT is that multiple newspapers, all breathlessly dishing out the same drivel, don't make someone notable; but if the interest of multiple independent historians doesn't make someone notable, then "notability" doesn't mean anything. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dank has this one, I think; there are clearly sufficient sources to show notability. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - The subject has been mentioned in a lot of reliable sources, but IMO that doesn't equal "sigificant coverage". To me these are passing mentions which are all about a single event. As such I do not believe the subject is notable under the WP:GNG. Without seeking to downplay the significance of his service in any way, the subject was a junior officer who was awarded a 3rd level gallantry award - both insufficient in themselves under the guidelines in WP:SOLDIER. Anotherclown (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, despite the reference to 'World War 11'. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (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.