Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Britten

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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Britten[edit]

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

Prod removed, I'm not convinced the Cross of Valour is enough to confer notability, never mind the overall lack of sources to support a biography. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm very confused by your nomination statement. Could I bother you to provide some clarifications for me please? (Thanks in advance.)

Prod removed - a) Where was there a prod? b) Is the {{Article for deletion/dated}} not the same as a prod? (Answer: {{proposed deletion/dated}} is different to {{Article for deletion/dated}}.)

I'm not convinced the Cross of Valour is enough to confer notability - Why are you not convinced? It's the civilian equivalent of the Victoria Cross, and the Australian replacement of the George Cross. Receipt of both the VC and the GC is (more than) enough to confer notability. Why are you not convinced?

never mind the overall lack of sources to support a biography - maybe the article has changed since you nominated it, but currently there are more than enough sources.

As I said, I'm very confused by your nomination statement. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Under WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor...", this person meets notability. The Cross of Valour (Australia) is highest peacetime bravery award of Australia, ranking ahead of all others but the Victoria Cross for Australia, which is only awarded for actions in combat. This award is rare, only having been awarded 5 times, and is significant due to its stature as a national honour. Recent consensus from other editors at this category deletion discussion roughly states that the Cross of Valour is a significant and a defining award, if you do not agree with my rationale: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_11#Category:Recipients_of_the_Bravery_Medal_.28Australia.29. EricSerge (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fully complies with WP:BIO guideline and corresponding policy. The award is not some obscure award from the local knitting society but a country's highest civilian for bravery. As for the "overall lack of sources", the article has sufficient number of independent reliable sources. --Technopat (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the explanation of the significance of the award provided by EricSerge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. Recipients of the highest non-combat award for gallantry are as notable as recipients of the highest combat award for gallantry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated by others, a clear keep under WP:ANYBIO. And I note that his heroism received a second wave of coverage in 2012 when he was honored a second time in connection with the Jubilee. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear case under WP:ANYBIO Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2013 (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.