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. Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lionel Churchill[edit]

Harry Lionel Churchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not quite sure what the claim to notability is for this gentleman. Though he obviously had long consular service for the British government, verified by notice of his appointments in the London Gazette, being a consular official isn't a qualifying criteria for WP:GNG. This appears to be more of a genealogical piece, for example with the recent citation to his Foreign Office service record and the citation to a genealogical webpage, the Levantine Testimony. His family info is uncited, presumably also WP:OR. In my opinion he doesn't meet WP:GNG and there are better places where this family history research should be published. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Holder of the CMG, which is held to be notable under WP:ANYBIO #1. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Shaw (healthcare administrator) for the confirmation. The CMG is an equal award to the CBE in a more senior order, so if the CBE is notable then the CMG certainly is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain As originator of this article I would be inappropriate for me to vote on this discussion but I would like to add some comments. As the originator of about 15 Wikipedia articles on people I am familiar with different interpretations of notability by different editors. Having studied the Wikipedia criteria notability it is my understanding that it is not the person’s notability per se, but the provision of independent verifiable references to support the article, and I believe I have provided this. For someone who was active more than a hundred years ago, it can be difficult to find many references on the Internet as many documents may not yet be digitised and in the public domain. When I first researched him I knew that he was less notable than his two younger brothers, for whom I have created articles, but my research uncovered enough material to start an article on him. Wikipedia works on the principle that nobody knows everything but everybody knows something and it is my hope that other Wikipedians with additional information will contribute to this article in the future. The fact that the page has been viewed 162 times in the last 30 days suggests that the article is of interest to people.MrArmstrong2 (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage is run-of-the-mill: just statement of appointments from the official newspaper that carries all statements of appointments, nothing in-depth. There's no claim that he was involved in any major historic events. The CMG is the sort of award which comes with the job of being a senior diplomat and doesn't indicate any distinction or anything extraordinary about him (since the honours system has changed considerably in the last 100 years, comparisons with present-day CBEs must be cautious). There's no clear policy on the notability of diplomats - a recent discussion was inconclusive[1] but they're not automatically notable. Could merge some info if there's a suitable target. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since the honours system has changed considerably in the last 100 years". No, really it hasn't! Other than the elimination of some honours and the opening up of the system to ordinary people with the creation of the Order of the British Empire in 1917 it's actually changed very little. It really isn't our place to decide that someone who was awarded a high honour then isn't notable now. He was considered notable enough in his day to be awarded an honour only one level below knighthood by his country, actually a relatively rare honour for a consular official. That cannot be said not to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - The consensus on previous AfDs seems to be that a CBE makes someone notable. Since a CMG is a more exclusive and "higher" rank, then H.L. Churchill should be notable. All of the coverage I found was routine, but 1) WP:ROUTINE is an event notability guideline - attempts to apply it to all subjects have been rejected in the past. 2) Better sources may well exist since only a small portion of contemporary sources are available online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not convinced that the CMG provides automatic notability in Wikipedia terms. It indicates that the holder was thought to have done a good job, but this doesn't necessarily translate into Wikipedia-handy sources, which this man seems to be lacking despite a clearly solid career. If he didn't have the CMG there would be little question here but that the article shd be deleted as principally genealogical; and the addition of the CMG without sources doesn't seem to me to tip the balance. WP:ANYBIO itself surely supports this: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards [incl WP:ANYBIO #1]. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". (bolding mine).

The main points cd perhaps be merged into the father's article in the form of a longish footnote (in case the "better sources" postulated above should one day come to light - if they ever do).Eustachiusz (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Necrothesp. Dalliance (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that Churchill was also considered prominent enough to receive an entry in Who's Who. Not considered to be a definitive reason to keep, but certainly additional evidence of his notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2015 (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.