Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Caradus


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Edward Caradus

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A biography written by someone close to the subject. The subject's military service does not satisfy WP:MILPEOPLE, his service as a teacher and principal does not satisfy WP:SCHOLAR and his OBE is not sufficiently high to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. WWGB (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. The tone of the nomination is quite unnecessarily aggressive and tries to present this as a black and white issue when really it's one of the 50 shades of grey.  OBE just pushes into notability, IMHO. WP:BLP doesn't apply. WP:SCHOLAR is also irrelevant because he wasn't a research academic but rather a school teacher/administrator - WP:GNG applies instead and he appears to pass this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Only the OBE has an independent source, the rest presumably depends on a book written by a family member which we can't read to verify. There is nothing else about him, I don't think an OBE and family bio make him notable enough  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of sources. Obituaries are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete - Doesn't really seem to make the threshold. Senior positions but not quite high enough. General tone and references obviously a problem but I think even if those were fixed wouldn't qualify - SimonLyall (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as it is currently is seriously flawed: it is written in the style of an obituary, not an encyclopedic article, and there is a lack of reliable sources. However, the subject does seem to be notable, and so, in my opinion, the page should be kept, and should undergo a major review. Improve where possible, and if impossible, then delete. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please refer to all the additional references now added which support the information provided. I would appreciate your favorable consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandjoy (talk • contribs) 00:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC) [ — Davidandjoy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The article as it stands is poor and poorly referenced, but an OBE is a significant award for service, and even on a quick search he does have mention in the Official history of New Zealand in the Second World War, 1939-1945 for his contribution to pilot training. In addition there are some bibliographical accounts in the newspapers of the period about him NealeFamily (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that we have never held the OBE alone to confer notability (although the next level up, the CBE, would), although it is a contributing factor. I'm offering no opinion on whether his other achievements make him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please note that a Mil OBE for war service, is a very notable award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandjoy (talk • contribs) 23:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)  — Davidandjoy (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * DavidandJoy you have said on the talk page that you are related to Edward Caradus - that is a clear conflict of interest. While I support retaining the article on its own merits you and the participants in this debate need to be aware of that. While Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, it does have rules for everyones protection. Please abide by them. NealeFamily (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not especially it isn't. It was (and is) very commonly awarded to low- and middle-ranking officers for distinguished war service and is lower in precedence than the DSO, and we would expect at least two DSOs for any form of automatic notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes, sorry. My name is David Caradus and I am the grandson of Edward Caradus.
 * I'll bet you didn't expect all this when you set out to glorify your grandfather! WWGB (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice subject but if we go by above discussion whereas OBE does not pass WP:GNG, I do not see the evidence of general notoriety. Certainly does not pass WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "notoriety" the word you want to use? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep. He appears to have made an important contribution in WWII, evidenced by the honour; but the article needs to be properly referenced.Rick570 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note. The article has been revised and with better referencing added, if anyone wants to review their positions. NealeFamily (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are no substantive sources talking at length about him except one obituary, which doesn't even indicate which newspaper it's from. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment you clearly haven't checked the references in the article NealeFamily (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply. One newspaper article. Not enough IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Response There are 6 newspaper articles cited, several books, and several Government publications in the references. NealeFamily (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Response The notability guideline requires Significant coverage and goes on to state that this is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. I think the coverage is sufficient enough to cross that threshhold. No orginal research was required for the information in the article, with there being sufficient secondary sources.


 * There are two things he did which, I believe, make him notable. The first is that he was the first person to establish a formalised pre-entry course for Air Force pilots during World War 2 (his course was taken up by other airforces (RAAF and RCAF) or used as the basis for their own programmes (RAF)) and secondly that, in a New Zealand context, his contribution to setting up trade technical training was also significant pioneering work.


 * I note the debate as to whether or not an OBE is significant enough. To my knowledge the OBE is a reasonably significant award and surely enough for Notability in conjunction with the above, in the context of an educationalist rather than military personnel.NealeFamily (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * These things are your personal opinions. For them to be accepted as a valid argument in Wikipedia they need to be sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Response Happy to quote sources. Which of the above statement do you want cite ref'd? I am fairly sure all that I have done above is state information that is already in the articles sources without getting too carried away. NealeFamily (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Prove them all. Start with justification for your claim that OBE confers notability by Wikipedia strtandards. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC).
 * All? The article has the sources for all, so refer to its ref list. But on the matter of an OBE confering notability, The only items that discuss them on the notability talk page reach inconclusive results. Personally, I think that an OBE by itsself is unlikely to sufficient. However, when looking at the sum of all the information in a bio it does add to its weighting in favour of notability because it is more than a passing recognition of that persons achievements by his/her peers or contemporaries. As an aside, it would be useful to find out if there has been any more specific debate about the sufficiency of this and similar awards. Here is a link to the most recent debate I have found Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2014. I also took a quick bit of research into the number of OBE's awarded - over 100,000 since inception in 1917, making it in my mind definitely too common for notability on its own. So in conclusion, I agree with you that the OBE on its own does not confer notability, but I still support the inclusion of this article for the reasons I previously outlined. NealeFamily (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Why are criteria like MILPEOPLE being discussed, when the subject easily passes GNG? This article is very well supported by reliable, independent sources - in part because New Zealand has comprehensive archives for many of its newspapers - and its contributors are to be congratulated for their research. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the article at the time of nomination, I can understand why, but now only GNG is relevant. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. It looked more like a copy of an obituary at the time of nomination, but now it looks like an encyclopedia article, and passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 9 April 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.