Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wilson (British Free Corps)

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. No evidence has been presented to show that this article's subject has had enough coverage in reliable sources to fulfill the requirements of WP:GNG, therefore this article's subject is found to not be currently proven as notable. (Note: This close does not hold prejudice against the article being re-created, if the proper sourcing is found in the future.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilson (British Free Corps) (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)

Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:Soldier. I am not seeing anything here that rings the notability bell, however Alekksandr disagrees. See the discussion on the talk page. As always I defer to community consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:John Wilson (British Free Corps), User:Ad Orientem states 'There is no doubt in my mind that the Free Corps is notable. However notability is not inherited. Aside from briefly being the senior enlisted man in the Corps, this individual appears to be a military non-entity. I'm sorry but that rather accidental distinction is not enough in my view to confer notability.' The subject was the senior British soldier in the Corps (all of its members were enlisted men) from June 1944 until he deserted on 9 April 1945 - I suggest that this does not count as 'briefly'. Regarding notability not being inherited, I agree that the 'rank and file' members should not have their own articles. However, if any member of the Corps is to have an article of his own, I suggest that the 'senior NCO in charge of Corps discipline (Weale, Adrian (2014-11-12). Renegades (Kindle Location 2440). Random House. Kindle Edition.) is a candidate.Alekksandr (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have several articles on members of the British Free Corps for a good reason. It is inherently interesting and people, in Britain and other places, want to know about the few British soldiers who joined the army of the enemy in World War II. For that reason there are lots of references and we should have these articles. John Wilson was no ordinary soldier. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not much has been produced in the form of references in support of this article. The subject still fails both GNG and SOLDIER. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, subject of this AfD has not received significant or in-depth coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; therefore subject fails WP:GNG. No books provide significant or in-depth coverage that I can find, nor on the reliable sources internet. I might be wrong, and if others can find them, I am willing to change my opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (perhaps unsurprisingly, from the contributor who started the article). I have submitted a library request for Sean Murphy's Letting the Side Down: British Traitors of the Second World War. London: The History Press Ltd, 2005. ISBN 0-7509-4176-6 to check what it says on the subject. If anyone has access to it, can they confirm? Thanks in advance. Alekksandr (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the British Free Corps, in the context it existed, is the sort of body which the act of joining makes its members notable on a prosopographical basis, provided there is sufficient reliably sourced information about them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This directly contradicts WP:NOTINHERITED. I am not seeing much in the form of policy or guidelines based arguments from the KEEP side of this discussion. If the argument is WP:IAR someone should should just come out and say so. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although the British Free Corps passes notability by a large margin, it does not mean the excess notability should be redistributed to its members, so to speak. I fail to see how this one soldier is, by himself, notable. I think most people would agree that every single informant or spy of WW1/WW2 in every belligerant country is not notable by the sole virtue of having done something unusual; it looks like the same here. Tigraan (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in Talk:John_Wilson_(British_Free_Corps) 'Searching for 'Wilson' in Adrian Weale's 'Renegades' (one of the main works on the BFC) produces 73 matches - so the subject does appear outside genealogical records, family histories and primary documents.' And as stated above, I am trying to get hold of Sean Murphy's Letting the Side Down: British Traitors of the Second World War. London: The History Press Ltd, 2005. ISBN 0-7509-4176-6 to check what it says on the subject. If anyone feels that there is a more authoritative/reliable book on the BFC than those two, can they provide details? See British_Free_Corps#Bibliography. Alekksandr (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a quick search turned up enough reliable sources to source the article. I added to it a bit. It needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not WP:CITE or WP:V. It's the encyclopedic notability of John Wilson. As far as I can tell only one source contains anything approaching the kind of in depth coverage called for by GNG. That being the Renegades book. The others are at best trivial in their coverage of the source, mostly being about the Free Corps, which again is not the subject of this AfD. The standard here is WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Clearly not a SNG pass as a soldier. The GNG case might still be made if his trial drew sufficient press coverage. I suppose a quick run through the British Newspaper Project on this question might be useful. Carrite (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, their search engine sucks. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 6 March 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.