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 no consensus. – bradv🍁 22:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been looking into Douglas Lewis and I am struggling to see why he is notable. The article appears to have been written as an expansion of his CV, with no useful references (apart from the one I just added!) His rank doesn't qualify him for WP:SOLDIER, and a CBE doesn't quite meet WP:ANYBIO (there are nearly 2000 honours given out each year, this doesn't seem that notable) There's nothing written about what he got the CBE for? His charitable work is even less notable than his military career. There are no articles written about him - he simply doesn't meet the WP:GNG. If it isn't deleted, it needs excessive editing to remove the clearly non-neutral language ツStacey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ツStacey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a point about the CBE - Order_of_the_British_Empire#Composition states that "The Order is limited to 300 Knights and Dames Grand Cross, 845 Knights and Dames Commander, and 8,960 Commanders". That is in total, so the number of new CBEs created in any one year is limited by the number of members still alive. It's the lower ranks where around 2000 ("no more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members") are appointed every year.

As for whether a CBE meets ANYBIO - I have sometimes seen it argued in AfDs that it does, and sometimes that it doesn't. KBE and above seem unequivocal, but CBE not so much. I'll see what I can find - there must be at least minimal coverage of the award. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I added the reference with link to the Newspaper Supplement which listed the CBE but that was all I could find. I really intended to improve this article but my limited results regarding this chap have made it impossible for me to do so. Please let me know if you find anything; I'm willing to work on rest of article if you do. ツStacey (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Commodore does indeed qualify under WP:SOLDIER #2, as it is equivalent to flag rank in other navies (it would naturally be ludicrous if a USN rear admiral (lower half) qualified because his rank included the word "admiral", whereas the entirely equivalent Commonwealth rank of commodore did not; same with brigadier generals and brigadiers). And the CBE has always been held to qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. Only 100-200 are awarded every year, not 2,000 (OBEs and MBEs, on the other hand, do not meet ANYBIO). I have never seen a CBE deleted at AfD, and quite a few have been nominated by people who are clearly unaware of the honour's significance. So he qualifies twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable for military achievements (unless there's more to add), not promoted to 2-star (rear admiral) so fails WP:SOLDIER; commodores are not generals/admirals, they're one-stars, and do not qualify as flag officers. If he had done something notable in combat as a 1-star, my vote would be keep; but his sole one-star appointment seems to have been at Greenwich. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are going down the ridiculous route that his rank doesn't include "admiral" so he doesn't qualify, although an American officer of the same rank (and same authority and status) would? Frankly, words fail me. As I've said, we always have considered that Commonwealth "one-star" officers do qualify under WP:SOLDIER. And as I've also said, CBEs have always been held to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets assume commodore (as rear admiral) inches past WP:SOLDIER(2). And lets assume CBE inches past WP:ANYBIO(1). Both of this establish likely notability (or presumed notability) - but just likely (and in both cases - he's right at the threshold set). Had our subject been Laotian (few enwiki editors speak Lao, and Lao script is non-Latin) or long-dead (e.g. died into 1970 - online sources might not be available) - going the presumed notability route might be legit. In this case we have BLP in an English speaking country, in a contemporary period - we should be able to see at least some sign of WP:SIGCOV online - instead we see close to nothing in terms of secondary sources available online.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • He retired from the Royal Navy, his main career, in 1998. 1998 is hardly comparable to 2019 as far as internet presence is concerned. I think presumed notability is fine for someone who retired 21 years ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should also point out that someone is not notable because they were awarded the CBE; they are awarded the CBE because they are already notable on a national level! It seems bizarre that some editors consider that Wikipedia's notability standards should be higher than those of the United Kingdom, which only awards 100-200 CBEs a year to a population of well over 60 million. Mind you, if he was a sportsman (one appearance for a national team required), a pop singer or a reality TV star (endless reams of coverage by fans on the internet) his notability requirements would be much lower. Such, apparently, is the drift towards pop culture on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • In response to Necrothesp, my definition of a general/flag officer is a two-star, not a one-star. One-stars aren't generals (or admirals); they're brigadiers/commodores etc. Combat service might move him up; the CBE might move him up; but not being a one-star. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're missing my point. In other countries (e.g. United States), a one-star officer is a flag officer or general officer (and is called a rear admiral or brigadier general). Are you saying that Commonwealth officers would not meet WP:SOLDIER simply because they are not considered to be flag or general officers whereas US one-star officers, who have exactly equal rank and level of responsbility but happen to use the words "general" or "admiral" in their rank titles, would because they are? That makes no sense as it relies merely on differences of terminology. Or are you saying that one-star officers should never be considered to meet WP:SOLDIER? Which would go against many previous decisions at AfD and what SOLDIER actually says. Also note that Commonwealth air commodores are considered to be air officers (i.e. flag/general officers), although they hold exactly the same rank as commodores and brigadiers. These claims are all completely illogical and inconsistent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi Necrothesp. I'm saying that in my 30-year understanding of Commonwealth armed forces, one-star officers are simply not generals or admirals; they are officers under that rank. They do not meet my definition of what a general or an admiral is. If you like, no, I do not consider they meet SOLDIER in terms of being general/flag officers: they are *not* "considered to be general, flag, or air officers." Our article for Air officer says that commodores and brigadiers are not considered general/flag officers, which would stem from the common Commonwealth understanding which in some way I picked up 20+ years ago. (I have noted that that article says air commodores are air officers.) Usual clashing definitions. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I know that in the Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores are not generals and admirals. I've said that. However, they are equal to generals and admirals in armed forces in which they are called brigadier generals and rear admirals (or something similar). And you could not possibly argue that the latter are not general or flag officers, since they clearly are. So what you're basically saying is that Commonwealth officers (apart from air commodores, even though they hold the same rank) should not be considered notable because of their title, whereas their direct equivalents in other countries should be considered notable because of theirs. Because a word is omitted from their rank they're not notable! That is utterly bonkers! And we have found commodores and brigadiers to meet WP:SOLDIER many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hi Necrothesp. No, as far as I'm concerned you have to make 2-star to be a general/flag officer, worldwide, whatever other countries say. I do hail from the Commonwealth, after all. Commodores and brigadiers only make WP:SOLDIER, as far as I'm concerned, on combat or other notable achievements, not rank alone. That will remain the underlying reason why I vote as I do. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the question of WP:SOLDIER #2 is an interesting one. British commodores aren't flag officers (under the British set-up), but their NATO positioning does mark them equivalent in rank to officers in other armed forces/navies that are. I'm inclined to agree with Necrothesp that since it is the level of authority that underpins #2, not specific phrasing, the criterion is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There may be more coverage of the article subject which would establish notability. I am at the moment looking into that matter. In the meantime, it is worth pointing out that WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO are guidelines to indicate when a subject is "likely" to be notable enough to invest the time in writing an article about the subject, rather than if the criteria are met that establishes notability, and both guidelines do say this. The criteria that is needed is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we can establish such coverage, then Doug Lewis would be notable enough under our criteria. Has anyone done a search for mentions in books and so forth? SilkTork (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After conducting a search I cannot find an independent reliable source that mentions the subject other than as a listing. When looking into the history of the article I note that it was created by User:JDNM1989, a single purpose account who only edited two other articles, both connected to the subject, and then left: [1]. The article has not received much attention, and has gained very few readers - an average of less than 1 a day: [2]. The organisation that the subject is president of, International Social Service, is tagged as needing verification, and a quick search doesn't reveal much in the way of independent reliable sources. The combination of lack of independent reliable sources, lack of readership of the article, and creation by a WP:SPA, points to this being a promotional article to support the International Social Service article. SilkTork (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borderline SOLDIER pass (either way) - however SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of GNG. Sources in the article are not in-depth secondary reliable sources. Searching for "Doug Lewis", "Douglas Lewis", "Douglas Raymond Snell Lewis" (+some D. Lewis, D.R. Lewis, D.R.S Lewis) (with CBE, Royal Navy, and other stuff) did not lead me to much. Lewis could plausibly be notable (rank, CBE, charity work, etc.) - however given that this is a biography in English, in the digital age - some reasonable sources should be available and we do not have to rely on presumed notability. Absent any reasonable secondary source covering him in depth - this is a delete. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't consider the CBE to be a qualifying award. "Cecilia Mathieson" a CBE from the 2019 New Year Honours has nothing online other than mentions of getting the award. So we shouldn't assume that there would be offline significant coverage for CBEs from before the internet era. I'm not sure that he meets the military guideline. Maybe if he were higher ranking or there was likely to be offline coverage I would support keeping. Blumpf (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you think these people are awarded the CBE, only 100-200 of which are awarded every year in a country of over 67 million people, despite not being notable? Good grief... As I said, maybe they should kick a ball around a field for a couple of hours. That would make them notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have an even rarer award! It can only be held and given out by one person and that person is me. Should I get an article now? What if I get mentioned one time in the newspaper?

It looks like "thank you for your service" award that is artificially limited not because it is very difficult to get, but because there can only be a certain number of living recipients. There are probably thousands each year who are just as deserving of the award but weren't lucky enough. I don't care how special the British government thinks it is or how much the Queen appreciates them if there is zero significant coverage.

There's something called the "sports" and "entertainment" section in most newspapers. So if some singer or ball kicker gets covered there multiple times I'm not going to try to delete it even if I don't think they deserve it. But for CBE holders it's not uncommon to only get one sentence in a list. And the one game sports guideline is insanely retarded it should be "have played in at least two seasons". Blumpf (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER. There are numerous other 1 star bio's on WP Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - while CBE and a single star does not make one automatically notable, in this case, he appears to make the grade. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (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.