Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned Parfett (2nd nomination)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Parfett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Not meet notability as this is "Classic one event" per last time this was deleted [1] Mason (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Events, History, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Pure WP:1E, page should never have been recreated after being deleted previously. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already paid a visit to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. We need more editor feedback.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person who died in World War 1. This is about the best I could find [2]. Rest are basically trivia stories around Titanic lore, with several photos of different things. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could perhaps redirect to an article about the photo [3]. There's been a limited amount of scholarly discussion around the composition and artistic points about the photo itself and what it represents. The person isn't notable, but the discourse around the photo is interesting. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting idea. Does the page already exist? Mason (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2023 (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.