Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recipients of the Order of Industrial Heroism


 * 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. The consensus that I am seeing in this discussion is a certainly a keep, and I'm not seeing a consensus to merge the article. The nomination was withdrawn and any further discussion about merging the article can be done on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 09:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

List of recipients of the Order of Industrial Heroism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is basically a list of errors. All of the subjects on the list are either red links, mostly for non-notable people for whom articles will never be made, or links to disambiguation pages for which there will never be a solution for the aforementioned reason, or just plain wrong links. For example, this list of people purportedly living between 1923 and 1964 contains links to Irish naturalist James Grimshaw (died 1857), pioneer Morgan Morgan (died 1766), colonial lawyer Thomas Hopkinson (died 1751), Scottish businessman Robert Jardine (died 1905), Harold Godwin (died 1066 at the Battle of Hastings), Robert Butterworth (not born until 1942), and James Tatton (not born until 1978). The list is unfixable garbage. bd2412 T 20:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The people on the list are notable because they did something notable as recognized by the Daily Herald, and secondarily because they received the order. The presence of James Grimshaw (died 1857) on the list is not a claim that an Irish naturalist was a recipient of the order, but rather that someone else with that name did something heroic. Newspapers published during that time (not just the Daily Herald) would have covered the actions which were subsequently labelled as heroism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone did something heroic enough to gain recognition from one local newspaper does not qualify them for a Wikipedia article, so it remains likely that almost all of the links on this page will be permanent red links. How about we merge this into Order of Industrial Heroism until such time as enough independently sourced articles have actually been made to sustain a separate list? bd2412  T 00:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Daily Herald (United Kingdom) was a national newspaper, not a local one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That still does not qualify the recipients of this honor for individual Wikipedia articles, which renders virtually all of this list a red link dump. bd2412  T 01:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge The main article is quite short and can certainly absorb the list of recipients. The red links should be removed. Reywas92Talk 03:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination seems to be an act of petty revenge after I reverted the nominator's inappropriate move of the article to the wasteland that is the "Draft":" namespace (note that WP:DRAFTS says "Editors may instead choose to create [...] new articles directly in mainspace after the user has become autoconfirmed or confirmed."). The claim that "All of the subjects on the list are either red links... or links to disambiguation pages... or just plain wrong links" is false; as is the claim that the red links are for people who are mostly non-notable. And, as any seasoned editor - and especially one trusted with the admin role - should know, "deletion is not cleanup". Work is already in hand to resolve the remaining dab links. No in-policy reason for deletion has been given. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already fixed all of the dab links, and all of the links pointing to clearly incorrect targets - a number of them were even pointing to fictional characters! What is left is a sea of permanent red links for people who will never meet the minimum standards of notability, plus four legitimate entries (for which I did the work of finding citations that were not the primary source cited in the article). For example, there is a listing for an "L. Thompson", for whom no information at all can be found. This is basically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. At the very least, there is no reason for this list to be separate from the Order of Industrial Heroism article. bd2412  T 11:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Still not a reason to delete. However, I'm surprised that, when you checked the relevant copy of the Herald, you found no explanation of why Thompson received his award. As for "no information at all can be found", Thompson was presented with his award on 16 September 1944 at National Union of Mineworkers' Office, Barnsley, Yorkshire; as the Durham Mining Museum source I recently added to the article states. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can tell us, then, what was his first name? When and where was he born? When and where did he die? The fact that his name is on the list is not in dispute. However, this is a non-notable subject, and should not have a link pointing to an article that can not be made. bd2412  T 13:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as soon as you point me to a policy requiring every biography to include first names, and date and place of birth and death. I look forward to you nominating Beethoven's biography, which lacks his birth date, for deletion. Also: Still not a reason to delete. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy at issue here is WP:GNG. The source you provide states "[Hall] led a party of four men who crawled through a tunnel of barely 18 inches wide to rescue 13 men... he and the four men — Messrs. T. H. Barker, W. Rawson, L. Thompson and J. Cruise will receive the Daily Herald Order of Industrial Heroism". That appears to be the entirety of the information available in the world about this Thompson, as well as about Barker and Cruise. Your defense of this article now seems to be dependent on a determination that this single mention constitutes "significant coverage". bd2412  T 13:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Poppycock. You seem to be confusing the nominated list with an article about one person. Still not a reason to delete. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a reason to eliminate the red links on the list, which would bring it down to five entries, which would be fine for a section on the main article, but does not require an article of its own. I will grant, however, that I am impressed with the degree to which you have been able to improve sourcing for even a smattering of the list, even if a few of the sources are questionable. bd2412  T 15:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong again, even if receiving the OIH were not sufficient to demonstrate notability, as several of the people who are currently red-linked have notability beyond that - as you'd know if you'd done WP:BEFORE. And still not a reason to delete. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easy to claim that "several" of the 400+ red links on the page are notable beyond the mere mention of their receipt of this medal. No one is stopping you from demonstrating this by finding proof of notability and creating these articles, so please go ahead. bd2412  T 16:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's easy for me to claim it, because I have done the research. Wilfred Beasley and Bert Tanner, for example, are among several OIH recipients who also received the Edward Medal - now the George Cross. As for writing the articles: I intend to write some, but WP:NODEADLINE applies. Still no reason to delete. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is possible that I underestimated the potential of this list as an article based on its original state, but why don't we merge it into the Order of Industrial Heroism, and then break it out into a new article again if the list does actually develop a reasonable number of blue links? bd2412  T 18:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main topic article and leave this one as a redirect. If the main article ever becomes long enough, it can easily be split. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as first choice. The list looks notable enough, and there's plenty of scope to expand it. If need be, then my second choice would be merge, but that would overwhelm the rest of the content currently there, and if the list continues to be expanded then it won't be long before it would need to be split out again. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The list can't expand beyond the 440 names of people who received this award over the course of its existence. It is possible that notability may be determined for some handful beyond the four who currently have articles, and the one name which redirects to an article where the person is mentioned. bd2412  T 20:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It can expand to contain more summary info on those people. Mike Peel (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We shall see if that happens. bd2412  T 21:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The award is notable, and to have a list of recipients therefore seems reasonable to me, even if the present list has an excessive number of red links. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing this proposal for deletion, based on the substantial improvements that I was able to make to this article. bd2412  T 13:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work ! I stand by a merge though, which you can do without the AFD. The main article is not not nearly long enough to need a split and its contents would make an excellent lead section for the list of names, and even perhaps an WP:FL if you're interested in doing more. Reywas92Talk 15:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting, basically a reverse merge, then? I tend to agree that we still do not need two separate articles. However, I would not want to attempt that step without obtaining consensus for it. bd2412  T 16:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way works. A "List of X" is not required to have an "X" article, or "X" is allowed to be primarily a list. No one here has opposed the merge and the keeps were in opposition to deleting the content. There is no simply issue with the size of the table "overwhelming" the lead section, that's why it's at the top or under separate headers. Whether you're actually interested in taking it that far or not, WP:FLCR 3c discourages duplication (which would occur if a separate list had an appropriate lead). Reywas92Talk 19:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't oppose anyone else who wants to take that step. bd2412  T 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "No one here has opposed the merge" I have. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge I think that the article is good enough being on its own. Although the lead is rather sparse, the amount of people in the table is very numerous.  I Need Support  :3 19:15, 22 May 2019 (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.