Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Greenwood (soldier)

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. I considered a redirect but the name as it is is an implausible search string. Tone 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Greenwood (soldier)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sounds like he had an interesting life, but didn't meet any aspect of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a redirect to Tottenham Cemetery or Harry Greenwood as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Greenwood, clearly not notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Greenwood#Early life. Fails WP:NSOLDIER and GNG, even the source in the article is more about his son. He can't inherit notability from his kinfolk. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. Notability cannot be inherited. --Danre98^{(talk|contribs)} 14:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Don't see any reason for a redirect, as no one will be looking for him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There must be some WP:PRINT sources that confirm this subjects notability.--Prisencolin (talk)

See Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. In one sentence, you need to be able to state why you think a person is notable. Being a relative of a famous person does not make you notable. Being a colour sergeant or a Yeomen of the Guard does not make you notable. Being buried in Tottenham cemetery does not make you notable. That leaves only his participation in ceremonies. So what makes you think he was worthy of an article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this means but it seems at least like a claim of significance to me: "he took part in royal ceremonies and stood guard at the lying in state of King Edward VII. "--Prisencolin (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that "he took part in royal ceremonies and stood guard at the lying in state of King Edward VII" is a credible claim of significance. But that does not mean the subject is notable: those criteria generally only apply to whether an article can be speedily deleted or not under WP:A7, WP:A9, or WP:A11. This dude fails both the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and the subject-specific ones at WP:NSOLDIER. In order for Charles to be notable, he must stand out, or distinguish himself from his unit (e.g. be the first member, or revolutionize the force, etc.) so that he gets significant coverage per the GNG. He has no uniqueness among the probably couple thousand of past and present Yeomen, or among the soldiers that stood guard at the lying-in-state. If those subjects are notable, articles should be made on Yeomen of the Guard and the ceremony of lying in state at Edward's death, but not a single individual involved in both. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST, especially the last sentence. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG, IMO. He could be mentioned at the son's article (if reliably sourced). I could live with a redirect, but I agree with Hawkeye, unfortunately no one will be searching for this fellow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2020 (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.