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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Balfour Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

British Army officer who not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Signigicant coverage in reliable sources already cited in the article, including obituaries in The Daily Telegraph and The Scotsman.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please see my argument at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Sandy_Smith_(British_Army_officer). - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per my arguments re Hugh Clark (Captain) and David Wood (British Army officer). The question really is what is signficant coverage? IMO this isn't it. If it was we would know far more about his life then we do. Passing mention in a large number of sources about a single event, as reliable as they are, doesn't equal significant coverage to me. The subject was a platoon commander (a junior officer) and was awarded the Military Cross (a 3rd level award), as such this doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:SOLDIER either. Long story short IMO the subject also lacks "signficant coverage" in WP:RS and is therefore non-notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please clarify your basis for characterising the sources as passing mentions? For example, roughly how many words are there about the subject in each? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - former platoon commander only. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obituaries in three major national newspapers are the very opposite of "passing mentions", and demonstrate that the subject was a notable platoon commander, per the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A full obituary in the Daily Telegraph certainly makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm baffled by the claims that the obits are passing mentions. For those who might not have actually read the articles, I've taken the liberty of linking to them in the article. --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:28, 22 September 2011 (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.