Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles R. Field


 * 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles R. Field

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Field was awarded a medal, but I have found no evidence that this particular medal makes him notable. I couldn't find anything on him via Google at all, except on a mirror site. Has been tagged for notability for nearly six years - hopefully we can resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. He received the Military Medal and Bar (i.e. two Military Medals), but the MM is a third-level decoration and more than 135,000 have been awarded. In addition, nearly 6,000 bars were awarded in the First World War alone. I would expect to see at least three third-level decorations (or one second and two third) before I voted to keep. Failing any other reason for notability, this is consistent with our usual procedures for determining notability for individuals decorated for gallantry. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we need to see more coverage of this individual before we might vote keep. I'm not a fan of by judging people by medals or rank, but I do want to see coverage.  There is a great interest now with the hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War coming up in 2014, and this sort of thing is suitable material.  The MMs are not insignificant.  However, the article creator shouldn't be making stubs like this.  A start class article referenced to a published book I can live with.  The problem with this article is that it's far too short to tell us much useful information, and with only a reference to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission database, we can't be sure if there's been sufficient coverage elsewhere.  So my view is delete with no prejudice against recreation if sufficient sourcing can be found. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- The award of Military Medal and a bar for it means that he was effectively awarded it twice. This is an unusual distinction, particlarly foir a stretcher bearer.  I would like to see more: there should be a citation somewhere.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nearly 6,000 examples in the First World War alone is not exactly unusual. Two bars would be unusual, but not one. Do we really want an article on every one of these 6,000? And medical personnel have actually won proportionately more gallantry decorations than combat troops. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete The award does not provide notabity, and the relevant guideline is NOT MEMORIAL. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2014 (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.