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. Michig (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Wyatt Smith[edit]

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

Just not sufficiently notable. Being consul-general is not enough to make him sufficiently notable. Delete. Bristolbottom (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion. It's the significant coverage in reliable sources that makes a person notable, not merely his position. The nominator seems to have a WP:COI with User:MJT21.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. he has held no notable positions and the coverage merely confirms the roles he had. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (per discussion) ~~Delete~~ - we require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have coverage in multiple reliable sources and much of it is significant. In addition, I don't believe that paper sources have been adequately exhausted. It does seem that the nom. has specifically targeted for Afd short articles created by User:MJT21 without regard to the notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article in A & C Black's Who's Who is conclusive proof of notability, like an obituary in the NYT. In fact, it satisfies criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO in of itself, because getting an article in that book is a significant and well known honour. James500 (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

simply being in A & C Black's Who's Who is not a honour. An honour is a designated major awards of title like MBE. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although we do not generally consider an MBE (or indeed OBE) sufficient for notability purposes. CBE, yes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, the sources given in the article satisfy GNG. For the avoidance of doubt, it is the totality of the coverage which is required to be significant. James500 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? None of the sources are available online and while they are not required to be online, there is absolutely nothing online that doesn't relate to WP articles created by the creator of this articles. I'm happy to WP:AGF but do you have copies of those sources? The creator has started a slew of articles, a significant portion of which don't meet our criteria. It's hard to accept those references represent significant coverage under the circumstances. I'm very much movable here - my query is a genuine one. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A & C Black's Who's Who is available online. All public libraries in the UK have a subscription. See http://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/article/oupww/whowaswho/U243117 . The books come up immediately when you search for his name in GBooks. They are previewable. James500 (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mustn't have access to the same things as you (from Australia). Only thing I can think of because I get 1/2 a dozen results and none seem particularly relevant; certainly not the ones in the article. Even that whowaswho link isn't working for me. Not sure what the hell is going on there. Think it best just to bow out of this one. Thanks for taking the time. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just discovered he does have an obit in The Times, generally considered sufficient to prove notability. Together with his WW entry, I think that's enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 25 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.