Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Cholmondeley (British intelligence officer)


 * 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. There's clearly not going to be a consensus to delete this, and the count is currently in favour of keeping the standalone article, however further evaluation of the sources and whether to merge can of course continue on the article talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Charles Cholmondeley (British intelligence officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notable only for WP:1E of his involvement in Operation Mincemeat, all relevant detail can be found on that page so this should replaced with a redirect Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no such thing as partial notability. With a biography, it is either established by significant coverage, per WP:GNG, or it isn't, and in this case the two books relied on clearly take Cholmondeley over that hurdle, the whole of him. On WP:1E, that says "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Moonraker (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that his role in Mincemeat was "a large one". The page is simply a brief description of his role in Mincemeat, with more detail about the Twenty Committee and Montagu than him. There is a complete lack of basic biographical detail about Cholmondeley and none of the sources I have seen amount to SIGCOV of him satisfying GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see that his role in Mincemeat was "a large one". Bizarre comment, given he and Montagu were almost wholly responsible for it! Montagu was the more senior officer (by only a single rank), but Cholmondeley was equally responsible. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Proveit with RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are cited in the article and already were when you nominated it for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 06:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. A search on him returns hundreds of pages, and a search excluding the name of the operation returns pages in other languages, so looks like WP:1E indeed. 20:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Prominent figure in a prominent operation that has been the subject of multiple books and two feature films (although he was fictionalised in one of them). Continued his intelligence career after the war. Plenty of coverage of him personally. Clearly notable. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide the "Plenty of coverage of him personally" because that is completely lacking on the page or in any of the references I've been able to access. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at all the books about the operation? You know, actual books, not just online sources? There are a number of them out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you? Or did you just watch the film? You claim there is ""Plenty of coverage of him personally" so proveit. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they're cited in the article. You seem to be moving close to claiming that only content you can personally see online is valid. You know very well that's not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there is no coverage of him personally as you claim. Where and when was he born? How many siblings did he have? Where did he go to school? Was he married? Did he have children? When did he join the RAF? What did he do after the war? What did he die of? Where is buried? Basic biographical detail, none of which is on the page. Mztourist (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress and AfD is about the validity of the topic not the current quality of the article. I'm sure you do know this really. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Basic biographical detail of someone who died 70 years ago and is supposed to be notable should be available. I'm sure you do know this really, just as you know how WP1E works, but then you seem to think no page should ever be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it's necessary for basic biographical details to be available for someone to be notable for Wikipedia. We can take from his Times obituary that he didn't seek publicity and probably didn't divulge these details. However, there are online sources that do reveal that he was born in South Australia on 27 January 1917 and was buried in St. David's Churchyard, Barton St David, Somerset and also what he did after the war. Piecesofuk (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because if they're notable for more than WP:1E as claimed then basic biographical details should be available. The family geneology page that you provided is not RS. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * but then you seem to think no page should ever be deleted. This is of course utter rubbish. I don't think pages on clearly notable subjects should be deleted. I think some editors on Wikipedia delight in getting articles deleted and would far rather do that than create them. I certainly do not think that no page should ever be deleted. Please don't start making attacks on those who disagree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given your lists and various arguments here at AfD over the years it seems a perfectly valid observation. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a civil discussion about an article and available sources, on- and off-line. Please focus on the article and possible sources, not your opinion of other editors. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a completely false observation clearly intended to undermine my position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at your User Page under Notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe Ewen Montagu's obituary of Cholmondeley in The Times (June 23, 1982) suggests that he's notable enough Piecesofuk (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - in addition to the SIGCOV raised above, he has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, which means that at least one major print publication considers him notable . It would be good if the obit mentioned by Piecesofuk could be brought into the article in some way. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the Times ref to the article. I couldn't find him in the ODNB, do you have a link? Piecesofuk (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the Times obit for anyone with access to the Wikipedia Library https://link-gale-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CS203786967/TTDA?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=e60059c7 Piecesofuk (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a very strange "obituary" as it omits any details of Cholmondeley's life other than his involvement in Operation Mincemeat and otherwise unsupported claims about V-weapons. Nice of Montagu to write it I suppose, but doesn't add anything to what is contained in other sources about his WP:1E life. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * UndercoverClassicist I also can't find him in the ODNB, please provide a link. Mztourist (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry: I was looking at the ODNB cited in the article, but it's someone else.
 * Yes Montagu's, because he was notable for more that just that WP:1E. Mztourist (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the obituary, I don't think we get to split hairs about content here: if someone has an obituary published in a national newspaper, that's evidence that they were considered notable. The content of the obituary is a nice extra, but there's no way to discount its existence as evidence of notability. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there are "real" obituaries written by the paper's obituary writers and others written by family or friends, the former go to notability, the latter don't. Montagu's "obituary" clearly is the latter. Mztourist (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A good quotation here from this book, p.370:
 * "In truth, it was Flight Lieutenant Charles Cholmondeley who really triggered off the whole concept of MINCEMEAT ... and Bevan recognised that Cholmondeley and Montagu were due at least equal credit." UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Pure WP:1E. There is no basic biographical detail about him separate from Mincemeat. Mztourist (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge or Redirect Looks to be a clear case of WP:1E. I see no evidence of notability aside from his involvement in MICEMEAT. The existence of an obituary only proves that he died. Intothatdarkness 14:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It proves that he died and that Britain's premier national newspaper of record thought he was important enough to publish an obituary written by one of his colleagues. A rather different thing. Most people die without a summary of their life and achievements appearing in The Times. Bear in mind that The Times wouldn't even note the deaths of many of the pop culture figures with no long-term significance whatsoever who have articles on Wikipedia, let alone publish something more substantial on them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it's also quite possible the obituary was run on the strength of who wrote it, and not the notability of the subject. We're also not discussing pop culture figures, and if they should have articles or not doesn't really bear on this particular article. Intothatdarkness 15:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect to Operation Mincemeat unless better sourcing is found. I'm not seeing any indicia of this being more than WP:BIO1E. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * keep based on the obituary in the Times and involvement in an important intelligence operation. Without the obituary it might be a BIO1E case but an obituary in the Times indicates continued relevance and enough relevance for the newspaper to run the obituary. --hroest 04:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes GNG, BASIC: Two of the sources (Smyth 2010, Macintyre 2010) have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. See below:

 // Timothy :: talk  04:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then please add the detail to the page so those of us who don't own the books can see what they say. I certainly agree with you that the Montagu "obituary" doesn't count towards GNG Mztourist (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
 * given that the primary concern is WP:BIO1E, it would be helpful if you gave a brief rundown of how extensive and far-reaching the coverage in Macintyre and Smyth is beyond MINCEMEAT. Simply asserting significant coverage in this context is not very helpful, especially since both Macintyre and Smyth appear (based on the titles) to very much be about the operation. Ljleppan (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2023 (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.