Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Wheeler (British Army Officer)

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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Wheeler (British Army Officer)[edit]

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

There are no citations and and no apparent notability. Jojhutton (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you Google Hugh+Wheeler+Cawnpore you'll find plenty of citations and explanations of notability. Google books has even more. Chris (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man is a major historical figure and the article should never have been nominated. Find and add additional sources. scope_creep (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't have been all that of a major figure if it took 9 years for someone to create an article about the person. Still, there are not any sources. And without sources there is no apparent notability.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a completely wrongheaded argument on two counts. First, what our corpus of volunteer editors takes its time to get around to means nothing. It took us five years to write about North Asia (AfD discussion), and that's a large area of the planet. It took us almost a decade to give significant coverage to Diogenes and Alexander (AfD discussion), and that's something that has over two millennia of literature surrounding it. No major encyclopaedia was written instantly, and Wikipedia is no exception. Second, lack of sources cited is not lack of sources existing. It's sources existing that counts. If all that you are doing is looking at articles without putting any effort in to see what sources exist, then you aren't being of any help or use to either AFD or Wikipedia, and aren't putting our deletion and verifiability policies into practice properly. Always look for sources yourself. Unless one does, an opinion that something is "unsourced" is utterly worthless, because it is based upon zero research. Always look to find out whether sources exist. This is the advice in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. It's best practice to follow it. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was a major figure during his time alive. I don't think you understand history and our current access too it. We are all sitting front of computers and accessing Google or some other search engine and expecting to find to answer to every question that is posed in here, but the reality is different. The real reality that Google and every combined is only indexing less than 2-3% of the worlds information, in those countries where google is not popular, like the Middle East, India, China, Indonesia much less so. Even Google, who have been working flat out to digitise the worlds libraries admit that they have probably less than 1% of the world books digitised, so most of the knowledge we have access to on Wikipedia and Google is miniscule compared to the vast ocean of information that is sitting tied in archives and libraries all over the world. Its worth knowing that some people are really famous in their time, but not know afterwards. I read in the Times about a scientist in the victorian age who was the most famous scientist in the British Empire, but completly dissappeared from view for over 100 years until rediscoved. scope_creep (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Ridiculous nominiation. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some footnotes would be nice. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: quite a few resources found with this search: [1]. I believe that Wheeler satisfies the guidance at WP:MILPEOPLE. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With the addition of reliable sources, WP:RS is satisfied, I'm still not convinced of notability, but as he appeared to be a General, there is no doubt he played an important, although most likely small role in the war. How do I withdraw the nomination?

As a side note, I do take offense to Buckshot06 calling this a "Ridiculous nomination"', as any user creating an article without citations, should expect the article to get some scrutiny.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination can be withdrawn simply by adding a line below the votes saying that you wish to withdraw the nomination. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some cleanup and copyediting, as well as added a couple more citations. While the subject was sufficiently notable, it still needed some help. Cindamuse (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Thanks for your contribution. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - numerous Google Scholar and Google Books mentions. Just because he didn't exist in the age of the internet doesn't mean that he's not notable and worth an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 22 August 2010 (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.