Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Sharp

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Sharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What at first glance appears to be a healthy wall of references is actually a number of questionably reliable sources and passing mentions. Didn't win a high-level award and was not an ace, therefore I concur that deletion is likely the policy-based outcomehere...based on WP:GNG. The nominator is reminded that "fails WP:SOLDIER" is ambiguous - it implies that that is the only/primary deletion reason, when it is entirely possible to fail SOLDIER but pass WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone fails WP:SOLDIER but passes WP:GNG, I probably wouldn't have nominated them at all. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 22:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then your nomnation should make that more clear by citing the article's not meeting a policy/guideline intead of only an essay. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not an ace, only passing mentions in the literature that I don't believe would be enough to meet WP:GNG. Zawed (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails our basic notability guideline laid out in WP:N. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 15:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article fails both the general notability guidelines and our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the DFC is a third level award and as such fails to meet the notability standard. NealeFamily (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2021 (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.