Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Evelegh

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. Wifione ^Message 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Evelegh[edit]

(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) 11:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG already cited in the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article makes no real claim to notability as far as I can tell and the I disagree that the sources cited are sufficient. Out of four "references" two are obituaries and one is the subject's own book. Subject appears to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely non-notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you discounting the two obituaries? To have obituaries in the Times and the Telegraph, you must be of some considerable note.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 21:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To have an obituary in one of the four serious (I was going to say "broadsheet" but that is no longer strictly true) general (I'm excluding the FT for this argument) national dailies is a very strong indication of notability. To have obituaries in two is absolutely conclusive. Obituaries are the best possible types of newspaper articles to use as a basis for notability, because they reflect the judgement of independent reliable sources that the subjects are notable for their whole lives rather than just being about particular newsworthy events. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full obituary in the Daily Telegraph = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 19 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.