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. slakr^\ talk / 12:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Shaw

[edit]

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

Might be a hoax. Can't find any reliable sources, or non-wikimirrors for that matter, at all. Only time even a piece of the quote pops up is on wikimirrors. Wizardman 20:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, it's apparently not a hoax, as I was able to locate the quotation from the London Gazette. However, that source does not mention anything about a medal, and I don't know where to look to find validation. There was a website linked from the Wikipedia article about the medal, but it wanted me to pay £3 just to look at the record. I don't think that's going to happen. I suggest we contact someone from WP:MILHIST, as they're likely to know how to source this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of completeness/coverage. WP:SOLDIER as a guideline is appallingly bad, and I refuse to seriously consider that, so I base my view on how complete the article is. I am not adverse to reversing this vote if the author can do a better job of it (i.e. I want date and places of birth, death, details of any marriages, far many more details of service (while not confusing him with another Roland White who served with KOYLI and died in 1917[1], and any others), and maybe a photograph). In other words to a quality standard which would be acceptable for a local history book. This is shoddy and isn't up to standard. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, I think WP:SOLDIER is an excellent guideline. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's terrible. But what makes it worse in effect is that the members of the associated wikiproject set the standards rather high and then vote to delete anything that doesn't quite meet the "standards". Compare with cricket, where the bar is set very low and members vote in coordination to keep anything that just scrapes in. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, don't agree with you (and I'm not a member of the WikiProject, incidentally, and had no hand in its creation). To my mind, as someone who has written many military biographies and even more on people who have been decorated and honoured, it perfectly sums up the military people who should be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No it doesn't. It only considers awards for "bravery", and insists that it must be awarded twice. Never mind that certain medals (DSO) are for leadership and until recently posthumous awards were VC or MID, with nothing in between. It sounds exactly like what it is - something that has been written by people who basically don't understand what they're talking about, although that is often the norm around Wikipedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It says nothing about "bravery", but rather "valour" - these are not the same thing. And it does not insist that a highest award be awarded twice. Soldiers =/= sportspeople, and comparing them is not apples to oranges, but apples to tomatoes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have to say I resent your suggestion that people involved in editing in this field don't know what they're talking about. I can assure you that I for one do, as a glance at my userpage will confirm! A little arrogant on your part, wouldn't you say? Strange, when you imply you do know what you're talking about, that you seem unaware that the DSO was in fact often awarded for gallantry. Probably, in fact, more often than it was awarded for simple leadership. It was actually frequently treated as a second-level gallantry decoration for officers (which is why the surviving commissioned pilots of the Dam Busters raid were all awarded the DSO, while the surviving non-commissioned pilots were awarded the CGM, which was purely a gallantry medal). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I am aware that DSOs to junior officers usually indicated they'd "just missed out" on a VC - but the DSO couldn't be awarded posthumously, which is the thing that throws the whole counting of medals system out, along with the known fact that medals were awarded somewhat haphazardly and inconsistently often for political reasons but sometimes they were not awarded to those who had committed acts of bravery/leadership for no apparent reason whatsoever. WP:SOLDIER is clearly not fit for purpose, as you've just demonstrated, and has indeed been written by people who plainly don't know what they're talking about. The comparison with other projects is entirely valid; WP:GNG is a better broader guideline. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I don't think I have demonstrated it... WP:SOLDIER generally says who is (for want of a better word) inherently notable, not who is not notable. It simply says that individuals with two second-level decorations generally will be notable by virtue of those decorations. Individuals with fewer will not be notable by simple virtue of having a medal, but that's not to say they won't be for some other reason. All your stuff about non-posthumous awards is a complete red herring. Coming back to the article currently under discussion, it is to me common sense that a soldier with one DCM and no other achievements cannot be notable except in a genealogical sense, which is not the business we are in. It doesn't matter how much the article is expanded. It just does not make him notable. We have to draw a line somewhere or there will be clamouring for every British soldier who's been mentioned in despatches or every American who's won a Bronze Star to have an article, which would be plainly ridiculous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You just demonstrated it again. A single DSO is often considered "not good enough", even when there's plenty of sources and the recipient clearly meets WP:GNG. WP:SOLDIER is simply not fit for purpose - but the worst thing is that the members of the wikiproject think it is (although as ever there appears to be very little thinking going on), and steadfastly refuse to consider anything that doesn't meet the medal-counting requirements. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The General section of the WPMILHIST notability guideline says "In general, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So far there is only the Gazette mention to support a claim of notability. And that is not sufficient. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um...If the recipient meets GNG, then SOLDIER is irrelevant. SOLDIER is only relevant in cases where the GNG is not otherwise clearly met. And your continued refusal to AGF is becoming wearying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recipients of a single DCM are not inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SOLDIER and appears to fail WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. I was hoping to dig up additional sources, but they don't seem to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2014 (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.