Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Gow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Gow

While I'm sure he's a very admirable chap, there seems no particular reason why Mr Gow should have an article on Wikipedia. It looks like a page from someone's family history. His war service, although no doubt solid, doesn't seem to have been particularly different from that of hundreds of thousands of others. -- Necrothesp 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Doesn't seem particularly notable. Perhaps some information from the SOE section of his autobiography might push this chap in to notable status?  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Gonna have to vote delete here in the absence of anything unusual about Mr. Gow's service. NawlinWiki 20:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A memorial to a good person, undoubtedly, but Wikipedia is not the place for that sort of thing. Tevildo 20:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. His service with the Special Operations Executive is unusual, and his status as a published author helps as well. TruthbringerToronto 00:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sorry, TruthbringerToronto, Wikipedia is not a memorial. ---CH 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, have to agree with 'Delete because we don't have a transwiki target for ordinary heroes - the basic everyday people who do good things and are worth remembering their stories because they are good examples. GRBerry 01:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears this 83-year-old war hero is only going to get in Wikipedia by appearing in a porn film, or a homemade Star Wars movie. Sad. -- GWO
  • Delete as per nom. I'm all for deleting porncruft and fancruft too, but Wikipedia isn't a place for obituaries. This article sounds like a newspaper obituary and most newspaper obituaries cover people who are not encyclopedic. Also, most special intelligence/commando operatives are not automatically notable. Bwithh 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
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.