Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier)

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. (non-admin closure) SMB9 9thx my edits! 09:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, and I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a Lieutenant General isn’t he presumed notable? Mccapra (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He would be, if he wasn't a lieutenant colonel. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Time for a visit to the opticians. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant awards either. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituary in The Times and other coverage such as the Imperial War Museum and the extensive accounts of the Siege of Calais seem fine for WP:GNG. He was the son of Benedict Hoskyns and father of John Hoskyns. Our policy of preferring alternatives to deletion applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times obituary and coverage in books about the Siege of Calais and Rifle Brigade histories meet WP:GNG requirements, regardless of the significance of the battle. Since GNG is met, NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here. Kges1901 (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times has two promising results. [1] [2] I agree that if his actions are covered in books, and he part of a notable event, plus the Imperial War Museum believes him notable, then he is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 11:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meeting GNG is sketchy here. The museum has his papers, and a paragraph of biography, same for what I see in books. Is a paragraph enough to meet GNG requirement of in-depth coverage? This is very borderline and I could vote weak keep or delete either way, hence - abstain. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The essential quality of sources is not their length but their significance: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The sources in question are quite satisfactory for our purpose as they establish and verify numerous facts about the subject, giving dates and other precise details which are appropriate for a biography. Length is not a good metric because some people write at length without saying anything significant. See bloviation and verbiage... Andrew🐉(talk) 11:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While The Times obituary is a short one, it is far more than a mere notice of death and is accompanied by a tribute. I think these push him over the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, no clear awards, if not then many other similar lieutenant colonels, wing commanders and commanders during his time should be written and kept. BlueD954 talk) 15:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment False equivalence, Red herring, Slippery slope and Whataboutism. Irrelevant logical fallacies all. We are discussing this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neave, Airey (February 11, 2003) [1972]. Flames of Calais: The Soldier's Battle, 1940 (E-book). Pen & Sword Books. pp. 73, 83, 84, 91, 93, 96, 124, 129, 134, 144, 150, 153–154, 156, 157, 163, 164, 176. ISBN 1473814308. ISBN 9781473814301. Article and references have been substantially improved since deletion was proposed. WP:Not paper. WP:Preserve. WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is interesting to compare the current FA with this topic as it was mostly written by the nominator. That article is about a formation that seems to have existed mainly on paper. When it came to the crunch, it appears that its disaffected conscripts either didn't show up, deserted or surrendered at the first convenient opportunity. We are told that its "notable commander" was Dragoslav Stefanović but there isn't an article about them even though they were nominally a general. It's not clear that that person ever saw action or did anything worth recording. The article is silent on many other details such as the number of horses in the formation and the manner in which they were supposed to fight – as dismounted infantry, with lances, sabres or whatever. This demonstrates that military effectiveness and history is not just a matter of the amount of gold braid that you have but that fighting spirit and devotion to duty are essential. Chandos Hoskyns fought and was wounded in both world wars and we have comparatively good accounts of this. We should not delete such a well-documented soldier while reserving a place for Dragoslav Stefanović because the latter nominally outranked him. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:25, 6 December 2020 (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.