Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Ronald Inglis
while this late veterans life is well documented, most it comes from records kept by the individual while they were alive (thus ) and from public records (thus ). The only significant coverage from non-primary sources is http://blogs.slq.qld.gov.au/ww1/2013/11/12/wwi-veteran-eric-ronald-inglis/ this write up, based heavily on primary and blpprimary documents from the State Library of Queensland. It appears that a http://blogs.slq.qld.gov.au/ww1/category/qld-faces-of-wwi/ great deal of work has been done by the State Library of Queensland, which should be commended; the amount of oral history and biographies of veterans on this page alone puts other such programs to shame. Thus brings the question, does every individual who has received as much effort by similar programs notable per ? I think this is why we have more stringent notability guidelines and essays which help guide editors to determine whether an article falls under  or is in fact notable within its field. Based on the detailed records the subject is not notable within the field of military history, having failed  and not being mentioned outside of records that fall within PRIMARY or BLPPRIMARY type sources. As for being notable outside of their military experience, the subject has had zero significant coverage while he was alive, therefore likely fails GNG. Therefore, with no disrespect to the honorable service of this late veteran, I cannot support keeping this article at this time
— User:RightCowLeftCoast, 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARY||WP:BLPPRIMARY||WP:GNG||WP:NOTMEMORIAL||WP:SOLDIER (Wikipedia:No original research)