Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. WP:SOLDIER is in fact an essay, which means it does not represent a community-wide consensus, and accordingly, the two "keep" opinions based on it can't be given much weight. As to general notability, consensus is that the subject doesn't meet its sourcing requirements.  Sandstein  08:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails GNG. No independent reliable source mentions the subject other than as a listing. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO as he does not have a qualifying rank, nor a qualifying award - though this was disputed in last AfD. However, meeting SOLDIER or ANYBIO merely suggests the possibility that a subject may be notable so it can be assumed reliable sources are available. If those sources are not available, per GNG, then the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. Created by a SPA as a promotional article. Fails to attract readers. Previous AfD closed as no-consensus. SilkTork (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite the nominator's spurious claims, he clearly passes both WP:SOLDIER #2 as a commodore, which we have always held to meet notability requirements, and WP:ANYBIO #1 as holder of the CBE, which we have also always held to meet notability requirements. Consensus is clearly that we keep such individuals. He was also president of a major international organisation. And what deletion policy is "Fails to attract readers" based on? We're building an encyclopaedia, not a digest of pop culture. There is no basis for this nomination whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. We may have a problem. I'm just checking the few details we have in the article. I was looking into his status as commodore, because he was given that rank before 1997, so it would not have been a substantive rank. In checking the sources in the article I discover there is an error. The article says: "He was president of the Royal Navy Rugby Union between 1997 and 1998", and that is sourced to this, which is a different Commodore Lewis - that is not Doug Lewis, that is David Lewis. We can see from the London Gazette that the subject was a commodore in 1992, but we don't know for how long. Before 1997 a commodore was a temporary appointment. And even after 1987 a commodore is not a flag officer. Flag_officer cites the Royal Navy as clarifying that a "Flag Officer" is "An officer of the rank of Rear-Admiral or above." and Commodore (Royal Navy) is a rank "above captain and below rear admiral". So we have uncertainties as to how long he was a commodore, and we have uncertainties regarding the details in the article because of the few references we can check, one appears to have mistaken him for the closely named David R. S. Lewis - easy to confuse with Doug R. S. Lewis. But we do know that his rank is not enough to make a presumption of notability, even if he kept the rank after 1987. SilkTork (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good grief. We've already had this discussion. Commodores are not flag officers, but they hold an entirely equivalent rank and position to flag officers in other countries. It is utterly preposterous to claim that an RN commodore does not meet WP:SOLDIER because he does not have "admiral" in his rank title, whereas a USN rear admiral (lower half), a directly equivalent rank with the same authority, does because he does. Commodore being an appointment rather than a rank was merely a peculiarity of RN ranking. Functionally it was a rank and in general, once a commodore always a commodore. It was no more temporary than its equivalents elsewhere. I'm amazed that this argument is still being trotted out as a reason to delete commodores and brigadiers (note that their RAF equivalent, the air commodore, is an air officer and therefore it would be impossible to argue that it does not meet WP:SOLDIER). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nominator. BlueD954 (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, delete per clearly incorrect claims that he doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO? Great. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So stop being like Fram. BlueD954 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete while his rank arguably satisfies #2 of WP:SOLDIER that is just an essay not a policy or guideline despite what certain Users like to assert or imply and he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ANYBIO is a guideline though. He meets that too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No he doesn't because he lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS, same as for GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not what WP:ANYBIO says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks significant coverage about the individual: we require substantive independent sources for notability, which are not shown. Director Personnel Policy is not a significant position bestowing automatic notability, even if his service had reached a particular rank. A "presumption" of coverage in an SNG is not a guarantee of coverage or notability if such is not found. Reywas92Talk 18:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So why do we even bother having SNGs? What purpose do they serve if we're going to simply ignore them and default to WP:GNG every time? The answer is, we don't. WP:SNG: A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet this SNG clearly says "The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline." It also says " Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article..." This SNG is not a free pass to avoid any significant coverage sources altogether, and actually bothering to read the whole SNG makes clear that this person is not notable for a stand-alone article! Reywas92Talk 18:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All involved in previous discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - putting aside whether a Commodore at the time was notable by rank alone - as Lewis fails substantive coverage, did not command in combat, and did nothing else particular of significance (fails SOLDIER 6, 7, and 8). If this was a really meaty well-referenced article about a senior Supply Branch officer, I'd support retention (that is, it would have to have lots of well-referenced details about what he actually did in his career). But there's no substantive coverage of what he did in the partial military appointments list given. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be because he largely served in the pre-internet era and information is far more difficult to find! Last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a repository of internet era information only. And how interesting that you're yet another editor who ignores the clear notability established by WP:ANYBIO #1. Britain thought he was sufficiently notable to award him the CBE, which is not handed out in cornflakes packets (only 100-200 awarded every year), but some Wikipedia editors think he's not sufficiently notable for their project. As I have said before, maybe he should have instead devoted his life to kicking a ball around a field (and once, and only once, done it in front of a few thousand people); then he'd be considered notable! But, as it is, all he did was achieve high rank in the Royal Navy, receive a very prestigious national honour and head major national and international charitable organisations, so obviously he's not notable because not that many people have written about him. Wikipedia sadly becomes ever more ludicrous! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am voting delete this time, on this evidence. If a revised version is put together with lots of deadtree material and gives a full picture of his service career, would be utterly great to vote to keep next time. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I stand by what I said last time - I've checked and the article and he is still not notable. 10:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC) Oops! Didn't realise I wasn't logged in! ツStacey (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Regardless of what people repeatedly claim, we have always held, by WP:CONSENSUS that a flag officer is notable, and he is, in fact, a flag officer. The argument that "WP:SOLDIER is only an essay" is spurious and disingenous - it's an essay that is written to provide a shorthand for expressing that consensus. I also can't help but suspect that if he was, say, a Bangladeshi one-star, or perhaps one from Uruguay, with the article sourced to exactly the same level, many of the same editors who !vote for deletion of subjects like this would be falling over themselves to !vote keep on the basis of CSB. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting once again that the discussion that led to the SOLDIER essay: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_90 is on the WP:SOLDIER page and part of the consensus in that discussion was that: "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article" Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Indeed, "significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources is non-negotiable; without this, a person is not notable and can't have an article". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:17, 3 December 2020 (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.