Deletion of Janet Pilgrim (British Army officer)

Comment: nominator's reasons for deletion ("too many articles") are not a valid reasons (see ). His argument for deletion is summed up by . The nurse, Janet Pilgrim, is notable. This fact is demonstrated by her being awarded the Royal Red Cross
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: to Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps.  I agree with Esasus that we rely on significant coverage in |reliable sources to tell us who's notable.  The Telegraph is an important British daily newspaper and certainly counts as a reliable source; the coverage on Major Pilgrim cited in the sources is certainly significant; so Major Pilgrim is notable.  QED.— However, I feel that  applies here, and I also think there's not enough material there (and not enough sourceable material could be found) to warrant a separate article for Major Pilgrim.  So I think we should merge this to a short section in Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: per . A Google search of 'Janet Pilgrim Royal Red Cross' returns only a handful of reliable sources, all of which only cover her being awarded the Royal Red Cross (eg, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/2497002/Major-Janet-Pilgrim-wins-the-Royal-Red-Cross-first-awarded-to-Florence-Nightingale.html and http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article1508154.ece). As a reminder,  and  are the relevant notability policies, not what editors think about the importance of the medal (people who win the highest level of medals are considered to be automatically notable because there's always lots of reliable sources available on them, and not because the medal is important per-se
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BIO||WP:BLP)

Comment: per io and . The Royal Red Cross is not the nursing equivalent to the Victoria Cross, and the subject does not hold any other form of notability; no disrespect to Ms Pilgrim of course. Cheers
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: passes  is a straightforward manner.  Baseless slagging of a journalist is not a convincing argument, and I'll trust the judgement of professionals over anonymous online avatars on what's notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: not truly notable under , just another  flash in the pan
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:BIO||:WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per io and . Some sloppy work by the journalist in question, leaving that aside, it seems a textbook case of what ONEEVENT is intended to cover
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: per io and . She seems to have a somewhat notable reason to have a page. It should undergo a major expansion though should it be kept
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B||WP:ONEEVENT)