- 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ivor Davies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Twice failed parliamentary candidate. Uhooep ( talk) 04:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Vipinhari ||
talk 06:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: CBE
Graemp (
talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I think it would be helpful if wikipedia had some clearer guidelines as to what constitutes notability in regards to people of the United Kingdom. Some editors are of the view that anyone who features in Who's Who (UK) is by right inherently notable. Some also believe that recipients of MBE/OBE/CBE's are by right notable enough for inclusion (the UK has a far more long winded honours system than that but this is the most common Order conferred). I on the other hand take a less inclusionist view. The first reason for this is that Who's Who (UK) contains biographies of individuals who are not necessarily at the pinnacle of their profession, for example it contains biographies on the vast majority of Circuit judge's and District judges, while I would argue that only the appointment of High Court judge (England and Wales) was de facto notable in itself. Who's Who (UK) also includes biographies on a lot of low ranking consular and embassy staff, while I would argue that only High Commissioners and Ambassadors were de facto notable, and even my bar is not unequivocally supported by the current guidelines. In respect of MBE/OBE/CBE's again these, and similar honours, can sometimes be awarded to cleaners, teachers and other such persons who would not normally be considered for inclusion based on their career or coverage. However time and time again I see the same arguments in AFDs, here, here, here, here, here etc. For these reasons it would be useful to have some clearer notability guidelines to work with in respect of United Kingdom related biographies. Uhooep ( talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a set view on the UK honours system. Recipients of the CBE merit inclusion regardless of any other issues. Graemp ( talk) 10:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: CBE
Graemp (
talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Absurd nomination. Plenty of sources and content. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per long consensus that the CBE proves notability under WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as he is involved in the articles Oxford by-election, 1938, Popular Front (UK), and now Patrick Gordon Walker. In fact, I was researching those articles and came across this debate, which I would not be able to do if the article was deleted. -- Dagko ( talk) 17:41, 16 March 2016 (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.