Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Griffiths (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 delete. Appears to fail WP:N, which is not disputed Wily D 15:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Griffiths (British Army officer)

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

Procedural nomination, this was nominated for proposed deletion by Peacemaker67 with the following rationale:

Nothing that jumps out that would make this gent notable, no sources and only a Major (see WP:SOLDIER)

However since this article has already had a declined PROD under a different rationale (suspected hoax), it is therefore ineligible for proposed deletion. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thanks kelapstick, didn't realise it had already been prodded. Google Books search for "Arthur Griffiths" royal tank regiment -wikipedia -"Books, LLC" gets nine hits, all of which are null or some other joker. Google Scholar also comes up empty. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and we wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt on the basis of WP:SOLDIER, as he doesn't have the rank or decorations. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am somewhat sympathetic to having an article on this individual. Two MCs on active service are not insignificant; there is no doubt a story to tell, and he does seem to have been a pioneer of tank warfare. WP:SOLDIER isn't generally a helpful notability guideline. However, I would have expected information for when he was commissioned and promoted (from the Gazette), and where and when information for the the MCs, and the author to have checked the regimental histories for the Royal Tank Regiment, and constructed something from that. There is much to be said for writing your articles properly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2014 (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.