Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Dorling

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.

Lionel Dorling

Lionel Dorling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article does not appear to meet the notability criteria for a biographical entry on Wikipedia. The most notable aspect of this man are his military awards which, although not easily achieved or obtained, were not highly uncommon or rare to British Army officers around the time of the First World War. The article's creator also appears to be a relative of the subject, and was perhaps created as more of a "tribute" then anything. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think that last reason is relevant. They made a good attempt at referencing their edits in line with policy. The problem is that those edits never go any further than mentioning the guy in lists of award winners. There's no significant coverage of him. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for not
  notability
  ; I can't find sources that elevate the subject above other, similar combatants. However, I think that his notability may also depend on your own definition of "awards", and how military medals qualify as such (and which medals are notable).

As a complete aside... he does appear to have been photographed by Walter Stoneman, who also took a famous photo of Churchill amongst others. These photos are in the

National Portrait Gallery, which may infer some level of notability, were it not that those are the only links that I can find regarding this. Thought I'd mention it though, as it piqued my interest. onebravemonkey 11:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete, does not meet the
  WP:MILMOS#Notability. David Underdown (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Companion of the Order of the Bath is notable--though not as much so as the higher ranks. The combination with companion of the Order of St Michael and St George is probably fairly rare. There are about 2000 of each--and I think many fewer at the time of these awards. DGG (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with DGG the combination of Order of the Bath and the Order of St Michael and St George is not that common, also note that the not meeting the MILHIST notability is not a problem as a lot of officers and soldiers listed in Wikipedia would probably not meet it either. MilborneOne (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with comments immediately above re decorations. Additionally as a Command Paymaster he would have been in command of a significant corps of men. Not a regiment granted, but certainly heading towards meeting MILHIST criteria for notability. RAF station commanding officers have been included for commandant less men in the past. It is not a bad little article and has more cites than many that go unquestioned. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note, the awards of a Companion of the Order of the Bath and Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George together is not exactly rare, particularly during the First World War. Dozens, likely hundreds, of officers were awarded both for their actions during the First World War. I will add below a comment that was posted on this article's talk page by User:PalawanOz:

"I had a quick check of Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, which has 697 people listed. In the "A's", there are 41 people. Of those 41, 12 (29%) also have an appointment in the Order of St Michael and St George. Now, I acknowledge that the GCB was often awarded to royalty (and hence they also received a lot of other Orders)... so, looking at the Category:Companions of the Order of the Bath, again, of the 33 "A's" listed out of a total of 643, 6 (18%) of them also had an appointment to the Order of St Michael and St George. I might add that many of them had appointments to higher Orders (of the Garter and Thistle in particular), as well as a sprinkling of DSOs."

I cannot see how it can be considered rare if 18% of just the 33 "A's" in that category also have the Order of St Michael and St George. If one was to search through the

London Gazette anouncements of awards for the First World War, one would find a significant number have been awarded classes in both orders. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

very good to have some numbers--thanks. i wish people did this more often, but I think it back what i said more impressionistically-- this comes to about 400 people. I think the top 400 Briitsh officers and civil servants of this sort is about the right proportion to call them notable. If it were 50% not 18%, the combination wouldn't mean much. DGG (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that supplying some figures would be able to help, which I was able to add thanks to the initive of User:PalawanOz. However, the facts that he was able to supply are only on people who have articles on Wikipedia, and this does not include the hundreds, even thousands, of other people who were recipients of these orders. For example, if you view the London Gazette reference for Dorling's CB you can see his name is listed among 55 people recieving the award for "services rendered in connection with Military Operations in the Field", a number of which also have the DSO and/or CMG. There is also the factor that these people could have (like Dorling) recieved the CMG or even DSO later in the war. He is also among 55 people recieving the CMG for "services rendered in connection with the War", once again a number of which have also been awarded the CB and/or DSO. Aside from his awards, the notability guidlines also specify that a secondary source has been published on the person in question; besides the London Gazette award anouncements and the photograph at the National Portrait Gallery, there is no other source I have been able to find on this man. Once again, I am forced to reiterate: I do not belive this man is notable enough for Wikipedia. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.