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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Charles Rothery Nutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as inventor of Artillery Miniature Range, which is not something I can find much about anywhere... —Gaff ^ταλκ 07:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Who's Who 1935 is given as a reference (which would be convincing) but I was unable to verify it online. Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Notes point # 5, a Who's Who entry does not prove notability —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I believe it is notable. There is several Google book mentions of him, plus the gazette entry, which confirms him withe the DSO. The DSO makes him notable. And what about this Google book entry, [[1]] which links both him and the miniature range, together.scope_creep talk 12:44 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Per DSO article, there are 16,244 members. Only some are listed as notable. A Gazette newspaper snippet announcing that the award was given is not very notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if Artillery Miniature Range is not notable to warrant a WP article, then why would the inventor be notable on that account? —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The several google book entries you mentions that I find are two books that have his name mentioned, but I don't see more than his name being on a list. So, there is no dispute that he existed. Verifiable doe not equal notable. —Gaff ^ταλκ 18:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – If anything this article has WP:POTENTIAL. The article is being added to the WikiProject Military history, which is quite active. Also, a note on their talk page as to this AFD will be posted. So I think project members will come on in to assist with developing the article. (The fact that an article on miniature ranges has not been developed is not determinative as to Nutt's notability. We are building, so the miniature range is an idea for another, worthwhile article.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: Once the article on the mini range has been written (if in fact enough even exists on the topice), then perhaps an article on the inventor would be appropriate. More likely, however, a mention of the inventor's name in the article on the invention should be plenty. —Gaff ^ταλκ

• Delete - fails WP:SOLDIER. I don't see potential for this to be more than a stub Gbawden (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - His page is at least as important as a list of bus routes. The fact that there's no article on the range only means that no one has created it YET.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Importance" and notability are not the same thing. Wikipedia has different criteria for biographies as opposed to bus lines. Stars and planets have different criteria from characters in children's books. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still Strong Keep--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are only allowed to !vote once in a deletion debate, therefore I've taken the liberty of striking your second !vote. Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have de-bolded Jim's 2nd !vote and removed the strikeout which made it appear that the vote was changed. – S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The DSO, as a second-level award, most certainly does not qualify him for an article. The invention of the range might. He does not appear to have a WW entry as claimed. I'm neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON and WP:SOLDIER. I'm sure he was a good man who served ably, but Wikinotable he quite simply is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Several books refer to him, particularly in relation to the British Expeditionary Force (World War I). He invented the miniature range as a prisoner of war after the Battle of Le Cateau. There are further references to him in minutes of a select committee in relation to the East India Company. I believe there is great potential for the entry to be widened in scope over time MJT21 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a little confused by what exactly this thing is that he invented, to be honest... But a guy whose contributions to military history and technology appear in multiple reliable sources? Yeah, that sounds sufficient to me, even if I don't personally understand his contribution. TheOtherBob 03:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Military history and the ins and outs of artillery ranges is outside my comfort zone too, but the article appears to be carefully researched, has multiple sources that suggest notability at a key point in time and makes interesting reading even for someone with only a general knowledge and passing interest, thereby fulfilling some key criteria for an entry. I suspect this is an article that could also be developed if it is allowed to stand and see no good reason for a hasty deletion. Libby norman (talk) 23:26, 22 September 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.