- 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. It's clear from reading this discussion that there's a larger question to be answered here, i.e. how we should deal with lists of honors, in general, and that AfD is a poor forum for that. It is suggested that a discussion be started on some more appropriate talk page, and advertised widely to ensure participation from a wide group of editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- 1946 New Years Honours (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1946 New Year Honours (Order of the British Empire) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Whilst the main article has been tagged as too long, this article is much too narrow in its scope to be a useful sub-article. It would, in this form, never meet WP:GNG. AfD after a contested PROD. This AfD isn't to say that the main article should not be broken into smaller sub-sets, just not something as narrow as one particular class of an order of chivalry. Schwede 66 23:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps if it included the whole order. eg. the entire Order of the British Empire subset? it would be quite long still, but more notable. A Guy into Books ( talk) 14:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
- I see that this article has been moved to 1946 New Years Honours (Order of the British Empire). Is the intention to list all MBEs and OBEs by year? I think that goes beyond the purpose of an encyclopedia. My father was an MBE (I can't be bothered to check now but I think he was given that honour in 1974 or 1975) but, as a modest man, he would be turning in his grave if he knew that that would lead to him being listed in an encyclopedia. CBEs and above tend to be notable, but the lower levels not. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- The intent is to retain the existing complete listing, regardless of the individual notability of the awards, but simply to split the overly long lists into shorter sub-lists. I believe it would be unencyclopedic to omit the lower 2 of the 5 ranks on grounds on notability. particularly as the sources do not omit the lower ranks and WP:verifiability is easy to establish. Since your father as a modest man is unlikely to be notable, he will not have his own page, he will simply be included on the list. Category:Members of the Order of the British Empire shows enough (some 2400) MBE recipients (the lowest rank) with their own articles to justify its inclusion in the overall listings. A Guy into Books ( talk) 21:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This article simply reproduces what is in the London Gazette without adding any context. This falls foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:BADIDEA. I would support the inclusion of a list of CBEs and above somewhere, because they are likely to be notable, and also of the small minority of OBEs and MBEs who have or should have Wikipedia articles, but not this indiscrimate list. And, by the way, they are the New Year Honours, or possibly in some contexts the New Year's Honours, but certainly not the New Years Honours. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- the year/years issue was already spotted and corrected on pages other than this one (which is in AfD). Your argument is counter to the whole point of why the MBE's and OBE's are being included, which is to add context to the otherwise overly short CBE article (which it was before this AfD). Contrary to your assertion, this list does infact pass
WP:INDISCRIMINATE criteria (note the
example given in the guidelines uses equal context and dissection of information.
WP:BADIDEA is not even vaguely relevant to this article. This article meets all relevant
WP:CSG guidelines and every entry on the list is individually
WP:N and
WP:V compliant. Not to mention that MBE's and OBE's are themselves notable topics. I don't doubt your father may be annoyed about being (briefly mentioned) in an encyclopedia, but that does not make the list unencyclopedic.
A Guy into Books (
talk)
19:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that every entry on this list is WP:V compliant, being sourceable to the London Gazette, but the vast majority are certainly not WP:N compliant. WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That applies here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- the year/years issue was already spotted and corrected on pages other than this one (which is in AfD). Your argument is counter to the whole point of why the MBE's and OBE's are being included, which is to add context to the otherwise overly short CBE article (which it was before this AfD). Contrary to your assertion, this list does infact pass
WP:INDISCRIMINATE criteria (note the
example given in the guidelines uses equal context and dissection of information.
WP:BADIDEA is not even vaguely relevant to this article. This article meets all relevant
WP:CSG guidelines and every entry on the list is individually
WP:N and
WP:V compliant. Not to mention that MBE's and OBE's are themselves notable topics. I don't doubt your father may be annoyed about being (briefly mentioned) in an encyclopedia, but that does not make the list unencyclopedic.
A Guy into Books (
talk)
19:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- @
Aguyintobooks: has redirected the article while at Afd, I think. With the result that the Afd tag
iswas no longer on the actual article. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Tagging problem has been fixed. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per the IP above. Per WP:NOTDIR et al, we are just not here to simply duplicate what the London Gazette, or Yellow Pages, is already doing far better. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- would it be acceptable for me to userify the whole set? I could pair them down to only include notable people.
A Guy into Books (
talk)
18:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- No. It's part of a series of articles with over a 100 individual pages, and you will have to establish consensus for such a fundamental change on a relevant talk page first. Just as you could (should?) have done before dealing with this particular article. Schwede 66 20:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well since this series of articles are basically all identical, if this one gets deleted (per
WP:NOTDIR et al) I will of course Afd tag the whole lot so as to be consistent. the article this was split from was wikipedias largest article for a while, so splitting them has already been decided (certainly no-one has objected), however it would appear a lot of the content once split is not going to be kept. (not notable if only the upper ranks,
WP:NOTDIR if the full list). I welcome any ideas to deal with this.
A Guy into Books (
talk)
20:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- This AfD isn't the right venue for that discussion.
Schwede
66
21:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Could you list this in the proper venue? I dont really know where that would be, but I also don't want to deal with this page on its own when it is part a set, it seems to be inefficient to have to go through each one individually. A Guy into Books ( talk) 22:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- This AfD isn't the right venue for that discussion.
Schwede
66
21:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for my delayed response. A more appropriate venue would have been Talk:1946 New Year Honours, i.e. add to the existing discussion there. If you don't get an answer there, go to Talk:New Year Honours. If that doesn't generate some discussion, I'd go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals; that project appears to be reasonably active. Beyond that, a requests for comment would be the next best venue. As you can see, making a big and unilateral change that can affect a lot of pages does not really work. Schwede 66 07:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have made so many changes to it that it is now completely different from the original anyway. I will see what the opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals is, because these lists are incredibly long (this one was 1,028,847 bytes, now a more manageable size) and need some improvement to be usable lists. A Guy into Books ( talk) 08:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Aguyintobooks, maybe it would be better if you would familiarise yourself a bit more with Wikipedia, to the extent that you could find the proper venue for yourself, before proposing such wholesale changes to the way things are done here? I must say that I find your modus operandi very strange for someone who claims to be a lawyer. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- How is anything happening here changing how 'things are done around here', there must have been a previous instance of a set of similar articles being considered at the same time? (in lawyer speak this is a class action, a very common way of dealing with a bulk of similar cases at once). As far as the venue for discussion is concerned, well this is the place to discuss deletions, there isn't anywhere else. but perhaps a RfC would be more appropriate, as I can't see a consensus being reached here. A Guy into Books ( talk) 21:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. With rewrite to remove all non-notable MBE and OBE recipients. (Sources to be included for all notable ones). Propose that Afd is closed as article is completely different to when it was nominated. (the content has changed, the scope has been altered, even the name has changed). A Guy into Books ( talk) 22:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note That there are now three levels to this. 1946 New Year Honours is the parent page. 1946 New Year Honours (Order of the British Empire) has been weeded to include only the higher classes. and 1946 New Year Honours (awards of OBE and MBE) has been split off to contain the bulk, this needs going though to make smaller. A Guy into Books ( talk) 00:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a dispute about structure of lists and inclusion of list entries, not an issue for AFD. An RfC would be more appropriate. Peter James ( talk) 23:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947( c) ( m) 04:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Peter James. An RFC should be held if someone wants to delete these lists, not AFD one at a time. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- 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.