Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Brown (chaplain)


 * 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   speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Scott Brown (chaplain)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The only independent sources I could find covering the subject in detail were this article from Christian Today and this article from Portsmouth News. I don't think this is quite enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. The other source in the article is a primary source from the Royal Navy and therefore can't be used to prove notability. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 00:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Chaplain of the Fleet ranks "with a Rear-Admiral", according to Circular 371, dated 1850(?). This 1975 London Gazette article lumps "Permanent or Pensionable Officers of Flag and General Rank and the Chaplain of the Fleet" together, which implies that hasn't changed. This satisfies WP:SOLDIER #3. He may also pass #4. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per a clear pass of WP:SOLDIER #3, as mentioned above. And the idea that a Royal Navy source can't be used to prove notability is totally wrong. StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are both right about WP:SOLDIER #3 and that this will be kept, yes. I'm not sure about your second point, though - this is a source written by the subject's employer, which means it isn't independent of the subject. We don't consider such sources for the purposes of judging whether subjects pass WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Perhaps you mistook my comment to say that we couldn't use the source to verify the subject's rank? I'm guessing that you wouldn't find my comment so objectionable if I had used "WP:BASIC" instead of the word "notability". — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, in any case - feel free to withdraw the nomination. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2013 (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.