704:
work). He MAY have actually played an important and noteworthy role during the war, but based on the sources you provided, his fifteen minutes of fame were when he served as usher and interpreter at a meeting between
Churchill and Molotov, and got his picture taken with Churchill to boot. Sounds kind of sad, actually.
307:
Have you verified that he even had the CBE? Just because the article says so doesn't mean he does. There is one source in the article and it has dubious reliability. We can't have articles without reliable sources no matter how notability you believe them to be. I'm having trouble even verifying that
827:
evidence of the index, with entries for 12 separate pages, would suggest that the coverage is significant, but, by your last comment, I assume that you have access to the full text of the book and have determined that this reasonable presumption is incorrect, as otherwise it would be impossible for
867:
significant, without revealing that you hadn't actually read it. There's no way that snippets can tell you that it's not significant, per the definition of "snippet". Playing fast and loose with evidence in this way is precisely what the supporters of fruitloopery do. Please don't start emulating
357:
Are you seriously suggesting that the Roy C. W. G. Firebrace described in our article as a colonel in 1937 and a brigadier in 1946 is not the R. C. W. G. Firebrace promoted to brigadier in 1943? How many R. C. W. G. Firebraces do you think there were of this rank in the
British army at this time?
703:
None of this equates to significant and substantial coverage. The fact that so little can be found on this person, despite his military rank, amply demonstrates that he was largely ignored and overlooked (which, admittedly, may have been intentional on his or his superiors' part, considering his
587:
anyway: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Yes, I think it is dubious that it is reliable. I didn't say "it's unreliable"; The
960:
and was
President of the College of Psychic Studies (founded 1884). I believe WO is military terminology like Warrant Officer. There is no reference to any WO Firebrace in the index - only R.C.Firebrace and according to the author on 12 pages in what is indisputably a significant, reliable and
745:
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
699:
Actually, Yworo, you did a good job demonstrating how unnotable this individual is. Even after scraping together your small pile of tangential, trivial and routine mentions, you've still come up with a guy with an singularly uneventful and unremarkable military career, who was somehow vaguely
951:
I am sorry ad hominem was not intended. I was trying to understand why you and
Dominus Vobisdu seem (in my view) to be so unreasonably determined to quibble about the notability of someone who is clearly notable on at least four counts. Firebrace was a Brigadier, who had a military career -
480:
A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and
768:
I will ignore your ad hominem on me. Firstly, as pointed out, meeting an essay criteria is meaningless. The essay does not represent the consensus of wikipedians on notability. If you look at the book you will see it's a W.O Firebrace, not a R.C Firebrace.
700:"involved" in the arrest of a famous individual, and whose military experiences as a pencil-pushing, glad-handing brigadier, desk-bound during the height of the war, are vaguely "mentioned" (probably only in passing) in a couple of books on other topics.
429:. 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.
910:
Yes it was given with the unqualified statement that the coverage in the source is significant. Let me repeat the text: "This is a significant, independent and reliable source". Then it followed it with an admonishment of me and another editor.
845:. Here you can see the mentions of W.O Firebrace. You are saying the book has significant coverage, the burden is on your to demonstrate that, but it appears you haven't read it. When I did the search, I could not find the significant coverage.
620:
If you have a source, produce it. Otherwise, your argument basically boils down to "maybe, sometime, somewhere, someone might find adequate sourcing". If you're talking about the source currently in the article, though, it does not meet
166:
828:
you to know that it is not significant coverage. Or is your approach to any evidence that doesn't support your prejudices the same as that of the quacks and pseudoscientists that you claim to be fighting against?
746:
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
588:
purported press it is published by doesn't exist except for publishing this very book. A publisher that only makes one book sounds a lot like someone self publishing. The source you added doesn't add to
859:
Once again you are not basing your comment on facts and the evidence. I have not made an unqualified statement that the coverage is significant, because I haven't read the book, but only that the
281:, 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
741:: 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
160:
119:
742:
214:
425:: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing resembling substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The fringe sources used for the astrology claims all fail
583:
does not apply. If the person is truly notable, sources outside the small circle (and yes it is small) of practising astrologers would mention him. He doesn't meet
234:
254:
286:
788:
957:
549:
So, you're admittedly making a judgement against a source without even having seen it? Strange. Well, not so much, considering you are also misusing
394:, links the brigadier with séances and the vomiting of ectoplasm, so I don't think that there's much doubt that the astrologer is the same person.
126:
843:
474:
SOLDIER is an essay. And as I mentioned above, I'm not even sure the source mentioned exists, let alone it being reliable. Also does not meet
92:
87:
96:
978:
refers to the extent of coverage of
Firebrace, it is not in reference to a general quality of the source itself. I'm quibbling because
277:. Brigadier is equivalent to a general officer rank (although not itself a general officer rank) and therefore meets the criteria of
79:
625:
by a longshot, and does nothing to establish notability outside of the fringe community, and not even within the fringe community.
181:
17:
148:
791:
on page 21 and subsequent mentions simply refer to him as "Firebrace", as is normal when context has been established.
1019:. Opinions count here, and many people consider the criteria in that particular essay to be viable. Dismissing it is
592:. The in-universe source "The astrology book: the encyclopedia of heavenly influences" only gives a passing mention.
142:
1051:
709:
630:
434:
40:
504:
1032:
991:
970:
934:
920:
877:
854:
837:
818:
800:
778:
759:
727:
713:
694:
668:
634:
601:
562:
538:
524:
510:
465:
438:
403:
381:
367:
352:
336:
317:
298:
266:
246:
226:
206:
61:
138:
842:
Calm yourself. I see what is covered by the snippets and previews through google books and see the coverage
391:
930:
873:
833:
796:
750:. This is an Encyclopedia and it must carry notable individuals and subjects whether we like them or not.
399:
363:
655:
I'd already added one by the time you replied. Now there are half-a-dozen. Seriously, you two don't look
1047:
1012:
982:
has not been met. You can not show a source where the coverage of
Firebrace is of a significant amount.
747:
188:
83:
36:
553:
in an attempt to exclude topics it was not intended to exclude. My interpretation differs. Obviously.
1028:
705:
626:
534:
430:
332:
294:
57:
1020:
987:
966:
916:
850:
814:
774:
755:
690:
597:
520:
500:
496:
488:
377:
348:
313:
222:
202:
174:
1011:
is not "meaningless". It may be an essay, but it is a widely accepted one, meets the criteria of
341:
325:
323:
1016:
1008:
926:
869:
829:
792:
449:
395:
372:
What I am wondering is if the astrologer Roy C. Firebrace, is Roy C. W. G. Firebrace or not.
359:
278:
262:
242:
154:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1046:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
580:
550:
475:
75:
67:
387:
1024:
723:
664:
589:
584:
558:
530:
461:
328:
290:
53:
983:
962:
912:
846:
810:
770:
751:
743:
Secrets With Stalin: How the Allies Traded
Intelligence, 1941-1945 (Modern War Studies)
686:
593:
516:
484:
373:
344:
309:
218:
198:
787:
look at the book you will see that the index entry says "Firebrace, Brigadier R. C.".
979:
806:
282:
622:
426:
258:
238:
863:
evidence points that way. You made the unqualified statement that the coverage is
113:
515:
Very well, I will say that I don't think being a
Brigadier confers notability.
719:
660:
554:
457:
925:
No, I did not say that. You really must start getting your facts straight.
197:
I could only find passing mentions, but no significant coverage anywhere.
452:. Has one source, and given date of death, there are likely other
1040:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
685:
Which of the sources gives significant coverage? Identify it.
956:, he was an author, he founded a significant organisation the
343:
is R.C.W.G Firebrace. Are you sure this is the same person?
718:
That's your opinion. He seems rather interesting to me.
579:
Elaborate on how my interpretation of the above text of
327:
I'll admit I am having difficulty verifying his CBE. --
109:
105:
101:
173:
456:sources even if there aren't any Googlable ones.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1054:). No further edits should be made to this page.
215:list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions
235:list of Military-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
253:Note: This debate has been included in the
233:Note: This debate has been included in the
213:Note: This debate has been included in the
805:It's not significant coverage required for
255:list of People-related deletion discussions
252:
232:
212:
958:Astrological Association of Great Britain
390:book cited in the article, published by
7:
1015:, and let's remember that Knowledge
529:And I do. And so do many others. --
322:Well, he was certainly a brigadier.
24:
287:been held to be such in the past
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
308:the book source even exists.
1033:17:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
992:09:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
971:05:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
935:23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
921:23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
878:23:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
855:22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
838:22:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
819:22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
801:22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
779:21:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
760:19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
728:23:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
714:10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
695:12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
669:02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
635:23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
602:23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
563:23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
539:11:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
525:23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
511:22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
466:22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
439:18:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
404:09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
382:21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
368:21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
353:21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
337:08:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
318:22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
299:17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
62:19:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
476:Knowledge:FRINGE#Notability
267:19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
247:19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
227:00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
207:00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
1071:
1007:. Meeting the criteria of
789:Here's the initial mention
952:significant enough to be
1043:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
954:criticised by Churchill
1017:is not a bureaucracy
961:independent source.
659:, do you? Cheers.
48:The result was
269:
249:
229:
1062:
1045:
507:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
76:Roy C. Firebrace
68:Roy C. Firebrace
34:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1052:deletion review
1041:
706:Dominus Vobisdu
627:Dominus Vobisdu
509:
505:
431:Dominus Vobisdu
388:Malcolm Gaskill
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1068:
1066:
1057:
1056:
1036:
1035:
1013:WP:COMMONSENSE
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
763:
762:
748:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
701:
697:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
503:
501:The Bushranger
469:
468:
442:
441:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
302:
301:
271:
270:
250:
230:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1067:
1055:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
959:
955:
950:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
844:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
826:
822:
821:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
767:
766:
765:
764:
761:
757:
753:
749:
744:
740:
737:
736:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
702:
698:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:
682:
681:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
603:
599:
595:
591:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
508:
506:One ping only
502:
498:
495:
494:
493:
492:
490:
486:
482:
481:popularizers.
477:
473:
472:
471:
470:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
444:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
420:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:Fourth Estate
389:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
354:
350:
346:
342:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
324:
321:
320:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1042:
1039:
1004:
975:
953:
927:Phil Bridger
870:Phil Bridger
864:
860:
830:Phil Bridger
824:
793:Phil Bridger
784:
738:
656:
497:WP:ONLYESSAY
479:
453:
445:
422:
396:Phil Bridger
360:Phil Bridger
274:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
976:Significant
861:prima facie
825:prima facie
161:free images
1025:Necrothesp
1009:WP:SOLDIER
531:Necrothesp
450:WP:SOLDIER
329:Necrothesp
291:Necrothesp
279:WP:SOLDIER
54:Beeblebrox
1048:talk page
984:IRWolfie-
963:Minerva20
913:IRWolfie-
847:IRWolfie-
811:IRWolfie-
771:IRWolfie-
752:Minerva20
687:IRWolfie-
594:IRWolfie-
581:WP:FRINGE
551:WP:FRINGE
517:IRWolfie-
485:IRWolfie-
374:IRWolfie-
345:IRWolfie-
310:IRWolfie-
219:IRWolfie-
199:IRWolfie-
37:talk page
1050:or in a
657:too hard
590:WP:BASIC
585:WP:BASIC
448:, meets
285:and has
120:View log
39:or in a
1021:foolish
1005:Comment
783:No, if
259:Frankie
239:Frankie
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
980:WP:GNG
868:them.
807:WP:GNG
423:Delete
283:WP:BIO
139:Google
97:delete
1023:. --
720:Yworo
661:Yworo
623:WP:RS
555:Yworo
458:Yworo
454:print
427:WP:RS
289:. --
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1029:talk
988:talk
967:talk
931:talk
917:talk
874:talk
851:talk
834:talk
823:The
815:talk
797:talk
775:talk
756:talk
739:Keep
724:talk
710:talk
691:talk
665:talk
631:talk
598:talk
559:talk
535:talk
521:talk
489:talk
462:talk
446:Keep
435:talk
400:talk
386:The
378:talk
364:talk
349:talk
333:talk
314:talk
295:talk
275:Keep
263:talk
257:. —
243:talk
237:. —
223:talk
203:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
865:not
785:you
478:: "
189:TWL
118:– (
1031:)
990:)
969:)
933:)
919:)
876:)
853:)
836:)
817:)
809:.
799:)
777:)
758:)
726:)
712:)
693:)
667:)
633:)
600:)
561:)
537:)
523:)
499:-
491:)
483:"
464:)
437:)
402:)
380:)
366:)
351:)
335:)
316:)
297:)
265:)
245:)
225:)
217:.
205:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
1027:(
986:(
965:(
929:(
915:(
872:(
849:(
832:(
813:(
795:(
773:(
754:(
722:(
708:(
689:(
663:(
629:(
596:(
557:(
533:(
519:(
487:(
460:(
433:(
398:(
376:(
362:(
347:(
331:(
312:(
293:(
261:(
241:(
221:(
201:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.