Deletion of Roy C. Firebrace

Comment: I agree with Necrothesp that Brigadier Firebrace's military status meets the criteria. I don't believe that the "multiple Google searches" have been at all thorough. I found http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0700608001/ref=sr_1_8?p=S01C&keywords=Brigadier+Firebrace&ie=UTF8&qid=1350213150|Sharing Secrets With Stalin: How the Allies Traded Intelligence, 1941-1945 (Modern War Studies) by Bradley F. Smith published by University Press of Kansas (1996). According to the index, there are 12 pages with references to Firebrace including criticism by Churchill. This is a significant, independent and reliable source. Before putting pages up for deletion, editors should check more carefully. Given how many astrology pages have been put up for deletion by editor: IRWolfie and supported by Dominus Vobisdu, I have to question whether it is Firebrace's pivotal role in astrology that falls into . This is an Encyclopedia and it must carry notable individuals and subjects whether we like them or not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: meets . Has one source, and given date of death, there are likely other ''print'' sources even if there aren't any Googlable ones
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER)

Comment: Meeting the criteria of  is not "meaningless". It may be an essay, but it is a widely accepted one, meets the criteria of , and let's remember that Wikipedia |is not a bureaucracy. Opinions count here, and many people consider the criteria in that particular essay to be viable. Dismissing it is |foolish
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:NOTBURO||WP:ONLYESSAY)

Comment: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing resembling substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The fringe sources used for the astrology claims all fail . Brigadier or not, the subject appears to have had a rather unremarkable and uneventful military career that receives only scant tangential mention in reliable sources. I don't think that the CBE is sufficient in itself absent substantial coverage
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Brigadier is equivalent to a general officer rank (although not itself a general officer rank) and therefore meets the criteria of , which, while not policy, is a widely used standard for notability of military biographies. The CBE is also a high enough award to count as "a well-known and significant award or honor" under  and has Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Babar|been held to be such in the past
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SOLDIER||WP:BIO)