Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ronald Inglis

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. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ronald Inglis[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. Nothing notable in here except that he recorded an oral history Gbawden (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, per WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wellshot Station.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any notability here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, just an ordinary private Kges1901 (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while this late veterans life is well documented, most it comes from records kept by the individual while they were alive (thus WP:PRIMARY) and from public records (thus WP:BLPPRIMARY). The only significant coverage from non-primary sources is this write up, based heavily on primary and blpprimary documents from the State Library of Queensland. It appears that a great deal of work has been done by the State Library of Queensland, which should be commended; the amount of oral history and biographies of veterans on this page alone puts other such programs to shame. Thus brings the question, does every individual who has received as much effort by similar programs notable per WP:GNG? I think this is why we have more stringent notability guidelines and essays which help guide editors to determine whether an article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL or is in fact notable within its field. Based on the detailed records the subject is not notable within the field of military history, having failed WP:SOLDIER and not being mentioned outside of records that fall within PRIMARY or BLPPRIMARY type sources. As for being notable outside of their military experience, the subject has had zero significant coverage while he was alive, therefore likely fails GNG. Therefore, with no disrespect to the honorable service of this late veteran, I cannot support keeping this article at this time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. I've incorporated material that's relevant into Wellshot Station, but regrettably I can't see any justification for keeping this article. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2015 (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.