Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Clark (Captain)

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. As pointed out, a dedicated paragraph in a leading quality newspaper is significant coverage in a reliable source. And there are other sources to support the Telegraph. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Clark (Captain)

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obituary in The Daily Telegraph is sufficient to establish notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be sufficient sourcing to indicate notability. I cleaned up the formatting a bit, but someone might take a crack at finding some online sources (like that obit, for example). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Telegraph obituary. It's a single paragraph rather than a full length article, but, as a quick indication of the degree of notability of people receiving such obituaries, I note that all the other people listed in that section have Wikipedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I respectfully disagree. The subject may indeed be covered in a number of reliable sources, yet I do not believe that this coverage is sufficient to consistute "signficant coverage". By that logic, in my opinion the subject is likely to be non-notable under the WP:GNG. I would ask the question: what is the subject considered notable for? It would appear to be his award of the Military Cross during Operation Varsity. Although a significant accomplishment in my opinion, it isn't sufficient to be notable here per WP:SOLDIER. Also there are signficant details about the subject's life that I would expect to be known if he were indeed notable. Anotherclown (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a proper obituary; little more than a notice of death. I suspect that the other sources just briefly mention him in passing. With all due respect to the man, just another junior officer who won the MC alongside many thousands of others. I can't see any particular reason why he should be especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2011 (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.