Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Denny (officer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Denny (officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable noteability created for an election candidate prior to an election along with Rob Atkinson (surgeon). They also seem to have been created by an editor with potential for WP:COI (based on timing, their userpage content, these are the only two articles the user has created so far, and user's own photos used in the articles). Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly heading for deletion, seeing as we're in the middle of an election campaign and shouldn't be giving non-noteable candidates articles, is it possible for this AfD to be closed now and delete rather than waiting the 7 days? Timeshift (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to Denny at Candidates of the South Australian state election, 2014 in the meantime. Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A valid question, seeing that there have been 8,233 inductees in the general and military divisions (and 19,400 OAMs, in case anyone would also want to consider them). Our Category:Members of the Order of Australia shows many AMs who are unquestionably notable for the reasons they were given this and other accolades, e.g., Olympic gold medals. I suspect that many recipient bureaucrats and military personnel are non-notable beneficiaries of insider reward systems—as against outsiders who need to perform more exceptional deeds to attract recognition. Be that as it may, I propose that we NOT consider anything less than the AO ranking as sufficiently notable in itself. Bjenks (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this 100%.
The answer is definitely no, although AC definitely would be and AO probably. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.