Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Edward Wilson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Edward Wilson[edit]
- Charles Edward Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A junior army officer with no apparent real claim to notability. Looks like a genealogical article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the notability standards, and I don't see anything about him that would make me say he should be kept anyway. A man who served King and Country well, but like so many others. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He's on List of international rugby union players killed in action during the First World War and this list as well, but I can't find anything more reliable to back it up. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have cited a detailed biography which refutes the notability issue. The content should be retained in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "detailed biography". It's merely a short biography among a list of short biographies of many other officers killed in the war and is largely regurgitated in the article. Neither does it in any way "refute the notability issue". All it establishes is that he was one of the many servicemen killed in the war. He was admirable, no doubt brave, but no more notable than any other of the many millions of people who've died in war throughout history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The biography provided corresponds well to the information in the article. It is an excellent source for our purposes and easily passes the specified test of significance. Your personal opinion of this and other soldiers is irrelevant, being contrary to core policy and an argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the only response I can give to this is "rubbish". You conveniently failed to quote the part of the guideline which says "Multiple sources are generally expected". You cannot possibly say that every soldier who has died in warfare who has been given an obituary is notable. That would include every single British and American soldier who has died in Iraq and Afghanistan for starters, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Let's go even further and include minor local figures who have been given obituaries in local newspapers. Sorry, that's just a non-starter and you can't justify yourself by accusing me of violating WP:NPOV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, neither of which are in the slightest accurate. The former is particularly laughable given this is a discussion and POV therefore does not apply, since our opinions are what count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has multiple sources. NOTMEMORIAL simply tells us that notability applies to dead people too. This topic passes our notability criteria on three grounds - detailed sources; a significant award; sporting achievement at the highest level. Because these are unassailable, you start criticising straw men instead - local newspapers; every soldier, etc - none of which are the case here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, good grief... -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address, if you would, the similar articles which you have created such as Henry Guppy (librarian), George Fowler (magistrate), Alexander Robertson (police officer) and many others. These seem to have a similar character and so your objections seem inconsistent. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With pleasure. Guppy was a CBE (a much, much higher honour than a Chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur) and headed one of Britain's major libraries. The other two were both knighted, which clearly makes them notable in any case, and were, respectively, a very senior magistrate and the deputy head of one of the largest police forces in the world. This chap, on the other hand, was a pretty junior army officer who received a very minor foreign award (nothing from his own country, please note) and appeared once in an international rugby match before being killed in action. If you're trying to make a point (or an attack on my editing), I suggest you make it a little better than that! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address, if you would, the similar articles which you have created such as Henry Guppy (librarian), George Fowler (magistrate), Alexander Robertson (police officer) and many others. These seem to have a similar character and so your objections seem inconsistent. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, good grief... -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has multiple sources. NOTMEMORIAL simply tells us that notability applies to dead people too. This topic passes our notability criteria on three grounds - detailed sources; a significant award; sporting achievement at the highest level. Because these are unassailable, you start criticising straw men instead - local newspapers; every soldier, etc - none of which are the case here. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the only response I can give to this is "rubbish". You conveniently failed to quote the part of the guideline which says "Multiple sources are generally expected". You cannot possibly say that every soldier who has died in warfare who has been given an obituary is notable. That would include every single British and American soldier who has died in Iraq and Afghanistan for starters, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. Let's go even further and include minor local figures who have been given obituaries in local newspapers. Sorry, that's just a non-starter and you can't justify yourself by accusing me of violating WP:NPOV or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, neither of which are in the slightest accurate. The former is particularly laughable given this is a discussion and POV therefore does not apply, since our opinions are what count. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The biography provided corresponds well to the information in the article. It is an excellent source for our purposes and easily passes the specified test of significance. Your personal opinion of this and other soldiers is irrelevant, being contrary to core policy and an argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "detailed biography". It's merely a short biography among a list of short biographies of many other officers killed in the war and is largely regurgitated in the article. Neither does it in any way "refute the notability issue". All it establishes is that he was one of the many servicemen killed in the war. He was admirable, no doubt brave, but no more notable than any other of the many millions of people who've died in war throughout history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNotability not established per WP:BIO. The single reference given is to a book which claims to be a 'biographical record of all British officers who fell in the Great War' and provides only an outline of his military career and personal life (along with similar records on thousands of other officers) so there's no particular reason for this person to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO has as its first criterion, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". This person was awarded the Légion d’Honneur, which is the highest award in France. The subject therefore passes WP:BIO. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I didn't see that. I'm changing my vote to 'Keep as there's an assumption that people who are awarded countries highest awards are notable (though this does see to be a case where notability is difficult to establish given the lack of other sources). Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name (W). Reyk YO! 01:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Award of Légion d’Honneur means the subject satisfies Wikipedia guidelines for notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was an England Rugby international so he's automatically notable [1] Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I believe that this individual is notable for being the recipient of the
highest class of theLégion d’Honneur and also for being an England rugby international. There are now sources to confirm these points in the article, so I think it should be kept. I think the relevant policy links are: Wikipedia:ATHLETE#Rugby unionand WP:MILPEOPLE. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Actually Chevalier, the lowest level. There are currently over 87,000 living Chevaliers! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was looking at File:Wearing of the insignia of the Légion d'honneur (gentlemens).svg and Légion d’Honneur#Classes and insignia, where Chevalier is listed as "1", and thus assumed it was the highest degree/class. As such, it would be the rugby appearance that would arguably make the individual notable. Apologies if I confused anyone. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Chevalier, the lowest level. There are currently over 87,000 living Chevaliers! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the previous commenters have pointed out, he clearly meets notability standards. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=link}
- As Necrothesp has just pointed out, it looks like his military award may not establish notability (I am profoundly ignorant when it comes to the French Military). I still believe the article should be kept per the Rugby Notability standards, however. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some people here seem unaware that the Légion d'Honneur is awarded in several different classes, the lowest of which are exactly the same as, for instance, the Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the UK (and it's long been established that recipients of the MBE are not automatically notable enough for WP articles). An award for which the maximum number of living members at any one time is over 135,000 hardly qualifies as a country's highest award on a par with, say, the Victoria Cross, with a total of only 1,356 awards in its entire history! There are currently well over 100,000 living recipients of the Légion d'Honneur (many more than the number of recipients of the MBE)! Don't let people pull the wool over your eyes with inaccurate claims. The highest levels of the Légion d'Honneur are France's highest award; the lowest levels most certainly are not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I should point out that when I nominated the article for deletion there was no suggestion in it that Wilson had played in a rugby international - that was added later. I do not personally consider that a single appearance in a rugby match is reason to keep an article, but obviously many others do. My assessment that his military career does not make him notable stands. Although I do think it shows how far Wikipedia is biased towards sport and entertainment that his relatively unremarkable (although no doubt solid - I am not insulting the man) 18-year military career is considered to be eclipsed by his much more unremarkable single-appearance international rugby career - what a sad indictment of our world! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - awarded Legion d'Honneur, and also international rugby cap, both of which are grounds for inclusion in their own right.--MacRusgail (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I understand the rugby arguments (although I don't agree with them), but did you read my comments above on the Légion d'Honneur? Why is the Légion d'Honneur notable when it can be held by over 135,000 people at the same time? That's like saying every British person who has been awarded any medal whatsoever (including a mention in despatches) is notable. People are misinterpreting the significance of the Légion d'Honneur completely. It is France's highest order, but only at its highest grades. Its lowest grades are ten a penny. It's not even unusual to award it to a foreigner. Many thousands of British officers were awarded the Légion d'Honneur in the First World War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - an international rugby cap for a top tier rugby union nation is unquestionably notable.Kwib (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2011 (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.