Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Terrey

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. Tone 14:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Terrey

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

Does not meet notability criteria - no evidence of his being a member of the armed forces in WW1, insufficient evidence of notability found. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. RadioFan (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly NN. Only possible notability is joining up at age 14, but this is described as "unverified". If this is to be kept, details of his war record need to be verified and set out. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- He claims that he joined the army at age 14, he's an "unverified British veteran", he is not notable enough for an article. If sources are even found that confirm that he joined the army when he was 14, and that he is a British veteran, then possible Weak Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Dan1 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not satisfy WP:GNG. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've read though article, good article, should be kept.--Del Boy (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be kept because it is a good claim and also a good article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.114.38 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources; quality is not an argument for keeping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If centenarians are not notable, the only other argument is that he was briefly mentioned in a few articles. I tend to be an inclusionist, but I have trouble seeing any notability here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it is worth, the creator of this article has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Benefit of the doubt goes out the window for me on that.--RadioFan (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated for "Douglas Terrey" in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:21, 4 April 2010 (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.