Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Gardiner (Swimming Coach)


 * 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. The consensus is that notwithstanding the fact that Gardiner was well-respected individual, he does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 23:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Jim Gardiner (Swimming Coach)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While laudable, Mr Gardiner does not seem especially notable. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I feel like the National Library of Australia entry might be an assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources, plus the awards he won, make him notable. The article would be more interesting if he had been involved in controversy and scandal, rather than being such a nice person. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't understand: a recipient of the British Empire Medal is "not especially notable"? He belongs in Category:Recipients of the British Empire Medal but can't have his own article? It's a tough crowd here.... SteveStrummer (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The NLA reference is not about him, it's about the pool. As far as I can see, a passing mention by the Ipswich Advertiser is hardly enough to qualify for the general notability guideline. As for the BEM: if all the 3,446 people who received the civil medal and 1,106 people who received the military medal in Australia are notable I'd be very surprised. These kinds of awards are sometimes given to active people in local communities who, while making excellent contributions to their communities, are not at all notable for our purposes. Gardiner, it would seem, is one of those. Frickeg (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Frickeg and concur with his point about the BEM. After the abolition of Imperial honours, the BEM was replaced by the Order of Australia Medal (OAM). I know around half a dozen people personally and one one of them would come close to meeting WP:GNG. The BEM and the OAM are mostly used to recognise dedicated community service in local communities or for a specific worthy cause. While the awardees are very worthy people, it is the bottom rung in the Australian awards system. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "The bottom rung"?? The Order of Australia Medal is quite the opposite: "In the Australian honours system appointments to the Order of Australia confer the highest recognition for outstanding achievement and service." Notability is a both a prerequisite and a consequence of its award. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bottom rung. Awardees of the Order of Australia Medal are not appointed to the Order of Australia. The hierarchy goes as follows
 * Companion of the Order of Australia (AC)
 * Officer of the Order of Australia (AO)
 * Member of the Order of Australia (AM); and finally
 * Order of Australia Medal (OAM).
 * At least 200 or so OAMs are awarded each year and most are given for things such as "30 years of voluntary service with the local Lions Club" and the like. I am not saying it is not a worthy award but by itself, it does not make someone notable. Perhaps a read of Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36 may provide you with some more insight into the Australian civilian and military awards system. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2010 (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.