Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Ernest Archer


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 14:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Norman Ernest Archer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

He was a lieutenant commander, a Private secretary to Eden when Eden was Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and some UK government Ireland related posts. None of these are particularly significant.

He is not covered significantly in reliable sources. Pika voom Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Pika voom  Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Pika voom  Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.  Pika voom  Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Pika voom  Talk 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recipient of the CMG. We have always considered the CBE and above to be sufficient for notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. See here for clear confirmation of this consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which he received since he was the private secretary of someone important (Eden). What is lacking is actual coverage of Archer. Pika voom  Talk 12:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's relevant that he received it as "private secretary of someone important". Consensus is perfectly clear that recipients of the CBE and above are considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There appears to be a misunderstanding about WP:ANYBIO above. It states very clearly that "meeting one or more (Of the ANYBIO criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". ANYBIO does not override WP:BASIC - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." What's interesting about this article is how little we have to say about this individual - an indication of his lack of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the article is far more than a stub (and stubs are perfectly valid in any case), that is blatantly not true. In addition, Wikipedia is a work in progress, so it is even more blatantly not true. There appears to be plenty to say about him. And I think you'll find I have been here long enough not to misunderstand anything about Wikipedia. Maybe you should read WP:CONSENSUS, which is a policy. It is very clear what the consensus is here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of text but what does it say? He worked for a notable person (He cannot inherit notability from them) He worked in the Dominions Office. He worked as a secretary to a diplomat. Nothing really screaming out notability here. With regards to consensus I think one of the most fundamental elements of community consensus is the requirements at WP:BASIC. Has Archer been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Not that I can tell. One thing I do know is your views on the notability of certain British upper-class individuals such as hereditary peers does not have community consensus, as shown in recent AfDs. This is similar - you are insisting anyone awarded certain honours gets a free pass on source notability. WP:ANYBIO is additional criteria. It does not, as explicitly stated, exclude or override the requirement to meet BASIC. Yet you continue to quote ANYBIO out of context in AfD discussions and ignoring the non-negotiable source coverage requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * So, if he was so non-notable, why did the British government consider him to be worthy of a fairly high award? There's no WP:INHERIT here. What, precisely, are my "views on the notability of certain British upper-class individuals such as hereditary peers"? Please point out where they do not have consensus. All peers until very recently were clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN and as far as I recall no peer who sat in the House of Lords has ever been deleted. What I cite,and you ignore, is WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia has no set-in-stone rules; everything we do is determined by consensus, and consensus on the issue of which British honours are considered to meet notability standards is extremely clear. To quote WP:ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". By consensus, he does. Your argument is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You cite a guideline which does not actually support your argument and ignore a policy which does support mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding hereditary peers, your userpage states you regard them as inherently notable irrespective of whether they sat in the Lords, which is directly contrary to AfD consensus. I'm purely bringing this up to point to the WP:ILIKEIT rationale you regularly deploy at AfDs on certain topics such as military history and royalty and nobility. This was rejected by a highly-respected admin in a deletion rationale in March. You used a similar, groundless rationale recently at Articles for deletion/Princess Irina of Romania in which another editor called this out. I see you have taken WP:ANYBIO out of context again, ignoring the part that says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" AusLondonder (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * However, I have not argued that at AfD for a long time as I appreciate it goes against consensus and I respect consensus. And as I said, consensus is clear on the subject at hand. You cannot possibly argue otherwise and expect to be taken seriously, as I have provided clear evidence. Also note that I am allowed to express an opinion at AfD, which is what I have done in the AfDs you cite (note, incidentally, that I too am an admin, so your "highly-respected admin" comment is neither here nor there). If consensus goes against me then fine, but it is very obviously not against me here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Passes BASIC? BASIC says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". Where is the significant coverage in independent reliable sources here? Pika voom  Talk 05:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mentioned in at least 3 books, that meets the criteria for significant coverage.Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of his book appearances are mere mentions or being on a list like the navy list. Pika voom  Talk 08:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BASIC is clearly met here, the sources provide detailed coverage, and he additionally meets the WP:ANYBIO and the well-established consensus re honours. I had a quick look through the Times/Telegraph archives and there is a lot more coverage that can be added in. Atchom (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just looked at Canadian newspaper sources, and lo and behold he scored several hits there as well, included a CP wire story in national newspapers. Atchom (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As per the OBE, while it is an honor, it's hardly a rarity. "There are no limits applied to the total number of members of the fourth and fifth classes, but no more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members may be appointed per year." OBE Assuming that is correct, there are undoubtedly many thousands of folks in the world today who are so designated. (Note that there is even a site called "How to get an OBE" with nomination tips, etc.) If a person is notable by other criteria, the OBE doesn't hurt, but I can't see how it alone can confer notability. Of the sources listed here, #1 is a kind of directory entry and seems to be self-published (ISSUU is essentially a printer of PDFs) #3 is crowd-sourced, #4 is a single mention in one sentence of a book, #5 is a mere list, #6 fails validation (it links to the home page of a professor but nothing about this subject), #7 actually has a few paragraphs about him and could be considered a reliable and substantial source, #8 I can't view, #9 doesn't mention him and is therefore irrelevant to his notability. I also wonder about the photographs. The main editor on this article is User:Sagette who also appears to have uploaded the photographs all listed as "own work" - including photographs that I'm going to guess pre-date that editor's birth. (I also note that the article states that "undercover" Archer's name was "Sage".) This all saddens me because the article is nicely done, but I do think we need at least one other reliable source, and someone with photo copyright chops should take a look at the photos. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Endorse this. It looks like a quality article but the sources just aren't there. AusLondonder (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody did say the OBE conferred notability. We said the CBE and above confers notability. That's the level above OBE. And the CMG is the equal level to the CBE but in a more senior order. OBEs and MBEs are far more commonly awarded than CBEs and above (fewer than 100 of the latter every year in peacetime, although more in wartime for obvious reasons). In a country of 60 odd million, that's not exactly very many! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry if I misinterpreted the discussion above. I looked at CMG and note that he is not listed there as having received one. Do you have a source that confirms this and gives a date? Because the statement that he is CMG/OBE is un-referenced and I don't see how we can use those to confer notability without reliable sources. He is listed such in the ISSUU (ref #1) but from what I can tell that was the work of an individual and self-published. He claims he took the information from government documents, but it would be much better to have actual government documents that we could rely on. Lamona (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * p.s. I just searched the London Gazette and found it! here. So I will add this reference to the article. Lamona (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit generated a reference error, so I have used the London Gazette template instead. It also had me wondering about when he got his OBE, so I added the Gazette link to it too.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough information here for a good article. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per CMG. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep senior diplomat, awarded the CMG. Also awarded the Order of Saint Stanislaus, 3rd class with swords from the Russian government for his service in WWI. Seemed to had senior diplomatic roles in a number of countries: North America, some biographical info in the Western Mail 16 February 1938; Australia, he's pictured in a group photo as part of the British Economic Mission in Adelaide; Ireland, Biographical details – Documents on Irish Foreign Policy Piecesofuk (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2022 (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.