Talk:William David Allan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

	William David Allan is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Prod

I don't believe that such a person qualifies under the WP:Notability guidelines, the references on the page do not link to any articles about him.Dylan fan 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

He was a chief constable, he was the third most senior officer of the largest police force in Britain and one of the most famous police forces in the world, and he served as one of HM Inspectors of Constabulary. This is part of a series of articles I have written detailing the Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, who, believe me, are not insignificant people - they wear the same insignia as Lieutenant-Generals in the British Army, and we would be unlikely to delete an article about an army officer of that rank. I have no idea what your point is when you say "the references on the page do not link to any articles about him". They are not required to. Print sources are fully acceptable on Wikipedia - this idea that only webpages are acceptable sources is quite wrong under Wikipedia policy and The Times is most certainly a reliable source. Since WP:BIO does not cover police officers (or, indeed, military officers), which is a serious omission in itself, slavish adherence to these guidelines would presumably mean deletion of all articles on senior police officers, which is blatantly ludicrous. I have therefore deprodded the article. -- Necrothesp 15:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination

I must respectfully disagree with you that all high-ranking police officers are inherently notable.

I agree that London’s police force is very large, but I do not think that gives automatic notability to ranking officers, or to any other large cities ranking police officers. London likely has a very large waste management system, but I do not think high-level bureaucrats from that department would qualify for a page.

I must also disagree that if we delete higher-ranking police officers we must then delete state legislators. While I disagree with the idea that these people are inherently notable, the policy has been addressed and consensus achieved, that said these legislators were elected and I think that confers some measure of public prominence.

My question about the references, is that most of the pages I have seen that have links on them, usually link to an article about the person, if the Times had published a non-trivial piece on him, then he would meet WP:Bio. The WP article does not mention any newspaper stories or anything that Mr. Allan did other than work hard and achieve promotions at his job. Serving his country at war and as an officer is certainly an honorable achievement, but I do not think it is one that guarantees an encyclopedia entry.Dylan fan 23:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that a member of a state legislature who sits on the back benches for a few years (even a few months) and says virtually nothing is more notable than the third most senior officer of a police force of about 25,000 men? He's also less notable than a professional sportsman, a minor soap opera actor, a singer who's had a moderately successful song or somebody who's written a few books? No, that's nothing to do with notability and everything to do with the fact that these people are known to the masses and have reams written about them on the internet. Confusing notability and exposure is an error, one compounded by the fact that living people will almost always have much, much more exposure than historical people; that does not make them more notable. Oh, and not all legislators in all countries are elected, incidentally. -- Necrothesp 02:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the adding of the references, now I know what they were referring to, however, the references only support the timeline of the individual, not that he is notable. I suppose the question I have is this: "If I were writing a paper on the history of the London police force, an explanation and history of the ranks would be important, but what does having individual pages on the higher ranking officers add?" Those like Sir Edward Henry, who were pioneers in the field of fingerprinting would add information about their changes, but if someone didn't have a large impact or that impact is undocumented, then that person does not require an individual entry.Dylan fan 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So, taking your comments to their logical conclusion, presumably the Commissioners themselves aren't inherently notable either? And where does that leave senior military officers? What have John Abizaid or Norman Schwarzkopf ever done except their jobs? What has been their great contribution to military science? Delete those too, eh? Or are generals somehow different? Is it because they lived in the era of television and the internet that they're notable? Because to keep people like that and delete people like this is completely illogical. -- Necrothesp 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's the logical conclusion at all. Addition: I guess the initual reduction is ok, but I don't think it's logical to equate the police with the military.Dylan fan 18:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why not. You have said people aren't notable for rank alone, after all. Allan was a Chief Constable, and therefore head of a police force, and as Assistant Commissioner was effectively equivalent in rank to the head of a police force. As an HM Inspector he could be considere even more senior. Why is a Commissioner, also head of a police force, any more inherently notable? I'm interested in your reasoning. -- Necrothesp 19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose your right about commissioners not being inherently notable, I don't think that blanket notability is a good policy (see your arguments on sports stars and bands). I guess my reasoning is that hopefully commissioners did something notable, if they didn't thier name on a list is just as valuable as their own page. Doing some searching I agree with the following ideas from User:Uncle G/On notability

"It is tempting to infer "All X are notable." from observations that many "X" have been found to satisfy the primary notability criterion, and thence proclaim that a precedent has been set. Precedent is an "If article X then article Y." argument, which is fundamentally flawed. Every subject must be considered on its individual merits. Inferences that "All X are notable.", and indeed that "All X are non-notable.", are invariably wrong. Shortcuts like this may be tempting, but must be avoided." (5.4 Notability not a blanket).

Section 6 I find useful as well:

"There are, in the main, two ways in which subjects can fail to satisfy the primary notability criterion whilst still being mentioned in published works:

• 1. There are no published works about the subject that are from sources independent of the subject itself. In other words, the only information about the subject is from autobiographies, advertising, self-publicity, press releases, and so forth.
• 2. There are published works, from sources independent of the subject, that mention the subject, but they are not non-trivial. They deal with the subject superficially, or tangentially when actually addressing a different subject.

In the first case, Wikipedia should not have an article. For example: If the only sources of information about a person are xyr autobiographies, then Wikipedia should not have an article on that person. In the second case, the fact that the subject is non-notable means that having an entire article is the wrong way for Wikipedia to be presenting what information there is on the subject. That doesn't necessarily mean deletion, however. One way of presenting the information correctly is merger into an article with a wider scope, the same scope as the published works outside of Wikipedia, for example."

The result when I apply this logic is that all ranked officers are not automatically notable, nothing in the article raises this individual to notable, but that he should still be mentioned in a list of officers of the same rank.Dylan fan 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Necrothesp is entirely logical. The argument used is called Reductio ad absurdum.

Anyone who received an obituary in The Times in 1961 was "notable" in those days, untroubled by fake celebrity. This notability hasn't evaporated because everyone now expects 15 minutes of fame.

+++ Vernon White (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"I guess the initual reduction is ok, but I don't think it's logical to equate the police with the military." What a bizarre thing to say. Why not? Are the police inferior to the military? -- Necrothesp 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclist battalion

How fascinating! Do we have any more info about this extraordinary force? This looks like a useful first source: http://www.devonheritage.org/Nonplace/DevonReg/TheCyclistBattalionsHistory.htm === Vernon White (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)