Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Wellesley Morrell

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. Davewild (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Wellesley Morrell

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

Is a Royal Navy fleet paymaster notable? Doesn't seem like it to me, and if not, he certainly doesn't satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, this is marginal. However if we ask "Is the encyclopedia better for having it?", then I think the answer is yes. This is someone who had a varied career across a historically interesting period of considerable naval changes. They may have been something of an observer to events, rather than an instigator, but their story is still a useful chronicle of the time. If we were to open a museum gallery, this is just the sort of character who a good museum designer might latch onto in order to tell a historically important narrative, such as the Sudan and China expeditions, through the agency of some more personal character. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources? An unpublished diary and refs from archives plus a single London Times article which, from its title, doesn't appear to directly detail the subject. Even if the citations were available online to audit, there's nothing approaching multiple reliable secondary sources here. A reasonable online search doesn't help us much. WP:SOLDIER gives us guidance on what might be presumed to be notable, but as nominator has pointed out, subject doesn't meet any of the criteria there. Subject is so obscurely sourced, I can only presume this is page creator's relative. I can't disagree with Andy's interpretation of the possible interest a professional historian might find in the subject (such a diary might attract me); until somebody does, we don't have anything upon which to base an encyclopedia article. I'd be only too happy to give this another look if someone better connected to sources can find some. BusterD (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I haven't found a single article or even mention of him, just standard Royal Navy listings of servicemen. It appears this information was likely written by a relative who has his diaries.[1] —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His rank is too junior for any "inherent" notability and he had no significant honours or decorations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to lack "significant coverage" so fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- one of the sources is unpublished diaries, presumably in the hands of the article's author. This is not an academic study of the subject, largely a piece of no-encyclopaedic family history on a NN administrative officer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only sources I could find seem to be lists and primary source documents, which are not really enough to establish significant coverage. I haven't performed an exhaustive search, though, so I'd be happy to change my opinion if more substantial sources could be provided. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2015 (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.