Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Hardie

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Hardie

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

Contested prod, not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that neither of the posts this person held are inherently notable. Lord Lieutenant is an honorary post with little real power. We may need to discuss what level of officer is inherently notable, but I suggest that it should not be as low as Brigadier. This person does not appear to have any significant claim to notability on top of holding these two posts. PatGallacher (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SOLDIER we keep articles on all general officers or equivalent (which includes brigadiers). Although it is not an official guideline, it is accepted by most editors who regularly work on military articles. The Lord-Lieutenant is the representative of the Queen in the county. That is also generally considered to be a notable post and has its own article. I should point out in addition that Hardie has an entry in Who's Who and, although the article did not mention it when nominated for deletion, is a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, a level of honour which has generally been held to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1 (e.g. this, this, this - the CVO is an equivalent grade to the CBE in a more senior order). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep because of the CVO, verified by Debretts. I would not say that merely being a brigadier in the reserves grants Wikipedia notability. It seems to fail WP:SOLDIER as brigadier is not always considered by these armies to be a general officer rank. --Bejnar (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, brigadier is not a general officer rank. However, it is considered by NATO to be entirely equal to the rank of brigadier general, which is a general officer rank, and brigadiers wear one star when it is considered necessary to indicate their status in an international context. It also replaced the British rank of brigadier-general, which was a general officer rank. Are we really saying that American brigadier generals are notable, but British brigadiers, holding an equivalent rank with equivalent responsibilities, are not just because Britain has chosen not to give them general officer status? That would be ludicrous and biased. Also, it has been held in previous afds that being a reserve general instead of a regular general makes no difference as far as WP:SOLDIER is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the minimum requirement for WP:SOLDIER as a brigadier, and the CVO, Lord Lieutenant and Who's Who entries get him over the line quite easily IMO. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sense that the discussion is moving in favour of keep, but we may need to look into which if any of his posts are inherently notable. Lord Lieutenant may have its own article, but his may not make every holder inherently notable, what about Alderman or Sergeant? Is anyone with an entry in Who's Who inherently notable? PatGallacher (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as positions go, since notability is not inherited, there are no positions that automatically grant notability. While some differ, there are many Wikipedians who have concluded that there is no inherent notability. See, for example, the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Notability plants and animals. --Bejnar (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's nonsense. That's not what is meant by "notability is not inherited", some posts are inherently notable, see WP:BIO. The argument being put forward here is that all military officers from Brigadier upwards are inherently notable, maybe so, but are e.g. Lords Lieutenant inherently notable as well? Note that the consensus is that e.g. ambassadors are not inherently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the latter seems to be changing, especially for ambassadors from Britain and other major countries. Lords-Lieutenant (and ambassadors) tend to receive honours that satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. Does that not tend to suggest that the post may be senior enough for notability? We consider that all politicians elected to a national or sub-national legislature and all sportsmen who have appeared in a single high-level international or professional match are notable (many of them are very obscure). Is it too much of a stretch to consider all Lords-Lieutenant to be notable? Aldermen do not usually have entries in Who's Who. Sergeants certainly don't. An entry in Who's Who does not, in any case, indicate automatic notability, but it's a good start. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Brigadier, Lord-Lieutenant add up to enough to make notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2014 (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.