Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William David Allan

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 - Yomangani^talk 23:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William David Allan

Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, I understand that London is a large and old city, but I do not think that confers automatic notability on ranking police officers. The officer in question appears to have worked hard and served his country, but as I understand the policies this is not enough to warrant an encylopedic entry. Dylan fan 23:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:BIO. No ex offico notability for third highest ranking police officer of London. There seems to be an effort to create articles on the entire London police upper hierarchy -see list on Assistant_Commissioner_of_Police_of_the_Metropolis. Good effort, but I'm don;t think all the articles have sufficient encyclopedic notability Bwithh 23:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The "effort" is mine, and naturally I disagree with you. These people are notable because of their office, just as military commanders and senior civil servants are notable because of their office. We consider politicians notable because of their office, we consider professional sportsmen to be notable because they play professionally, yet you claim we should not consider senior police officers to be notable because they run big policing organisations that affect many thousands of people (millions in the case of London)? This is not logical. I fear that notability is being confused with recognisability. They are not the same. -- Necrothesp 02:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My contention is that this person did not reach a senior enough position (third ranking officer) for ex officio encyclopedic notability - and not that all senior police officers are non-notable. Same goes for civil servants and military officers who do not reach the very highest positions. And no, I don't confuse notability with recognisability - while I've long said that a WP:MANDARIN guideline is needed for public servants, I've been even more vocal in asserting that media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. Bwithh 03:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
      • You are conveniently ignoring the fact that he was also a Chief Constable and an HM Inspector of Constabulary. But that aside, are you saying that only the Chief of the General Staff of the British Army is notable and none of his juniors are? Are only military officers who reach the rank of full general notable? If more junior military officers are notable then why does this not apply to police officers? What exactly is the "very highest position"? Chief Constables of other police forces often give up that position to be appointed AC of the Met, which is considered an equivalent rank even though it is not the highest rank in the force, such is the prestige of the job. So, by your reckoning, Chief Constables are presumably not notable, or suddenly become non-notable as soon as they become a "lowly" AC. You are also ignoring the fact that, for instance, WP:BIO states that sportsmen who play in a fully professional league are notable. So, a footballer who plays in the lowest professional division in a country is notable, but the third most senior police officer of a city of millions is not? This all sounds like severe discrimination against public servants who may not be well-known to the public but are still notable in their own fields. -- Necrothesp 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep . However, you will see that this officer was awarded an O.B.E.. Athough some cynics have described this as gong as an "Order bestowed to Everyone", it is actually hard to come by and indicates someone who is much-more than a time-server, as Dylan fan implies, on User:Necrothesp's Talk page . Perhaps the O.B.E. citation would bring more colour to the article. I suppose another test of notability could be whether anyone researching, say, "London: Crime and the Police response" could find the article immensely helpful in tieing up loose ends. === Vernon White (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment According to Order_of_the_British_Empire#Composition, up to 858 OBEs may be awarded per year, with no limit on total numbers. Too common to be a reliable indicator of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is now. Far fewer were awarded in the past. And in any case, that's not the normal number of OBEs awarded. The usual number today is maybe 2-300 a year. In Allan's time it was closer to 100 at the most. --Necrothesp 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• The pure number doesn't show the importance, even the American Medal of Honor was awared 3461 times and this is an unquestionably high award. ~~ Phoe _talk 09:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

• Keep. I am the creator of this article and others in the series. The Assistant Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police, of whom there were only four at any one time, were among the six most senior officers of the London Metropolitan Police, after the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The force was between 20,000 and 30,000 men strong, policed one of the largest and most important cities in the world, and led policing innovation throughout Britain, the British Empire, and often the world. The ACs wore (and still wear) effectively the same rank insignia as a Lieutenant-General in the British Army and are equal in rank to the Chief Constables (i.e. the chiefs of police) of every other police force in the United Kingdom. Allan had previously served as a Chief Constable himself and then as one of HM Inspectors of Constabulary, of whom there were only two in the whole of England and Wales and whose job it was to inspect every other police force on behalf of the Home Office. And yet people claim he's not notable?! Of course someone of that rank is notable, by virtue of his rank and position alone. If people like this are not considered notable and minor soap stars, athletes, models and singers are then I shall begin to give up on Wikipedia. It's simply getting to the stage when the attitude of the deletionists is making it not worth writing for this encyclopaedia, since hard work and attempts to create coherent series of articles are gleefully proposed for deletion by people who obviously have little knowledge of the subject and little idea of what constitutes notability, particularly as regards anything that predates the internet age. -- Necrothesp 01:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be sorry to see you give up on Wikipedia, but I would point out that inclusion of minor celebrities is not a deletionist attitude. Anyway, being afd'd shouldn't be taken as an offensive gesture. Bwithh 03:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not offensive. It's just very irritating when a lot of work has gone into it and increasing numbers of articles are proposed for deletion on what I consider to be spurious grounds. Notability seems to be increasingly defined as "I've heard of them". -- Necrothesp 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If this particular person was involved in innovation, please point it out, then they would have some notable achievement, the fact that the force is in a large city doesn't mean that it's ranking officers are more important than medium sized cities police chiefs. I recognize and agree that many minor people have articles when we will forget about them in a few years, but that doesn't mean we cannot discuss this articleDylan fan 07:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am frankly sick and tired of defending articles (not usually mine) in AfDs against rampant deletionism. I joined Wikipedia to create articles, and it seems to me that an ever increasing number are here only to destroy. Destroy rubbish. Destroy articles about minor so-called celebrities. Fine. Do not destroy articles about significant people who would probably have had plenty written about them had the internet existed in their time. This is not what Wikipedia is all about. Not to me anyway. And incidentally, I do believe the police chiefs and other senior officers of all largish cities are notable. When have I said otherwise? -- Necrothesp 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly notable! Chief Constable of two police forces and an AC in the Met? Even if we ignore the AC position, he was the highest ranking police officer in two British police forces, or should we only have articles on the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police? Agree with Necrothesp - pretty frustrating, isn't it! Great article by the way. --Canley 05:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I feel that police officers are severely under-represented on Wikipedia, and the comments here sadly show that people would much rather have articles on minor celebrities and politicians than people who made a real contribution to the world. Presumably even the Commissioners are not notable by the reckoning of some, since they just held a senior rank. Didn't do anything of note, like kick a ball around a field for a living, sit in a parliament for a few months or record a moderately successful song, all of which would qualify them for an article with few questions asked. No, all they did was get to the top of their profession. How could that possibly qualify them for an article on Wikipedia! -- Necrothesp 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Phil Cline, the Chief of the Chicago Police Department, doesn't have an article, as far as I can tell, only Raymond W. Kelly the commissioner, is the only guy in NYPD that has one. Yes, I agree that it's silly that every damn pokemon character has an article and many ranking cops don't, but we're talking about overall public notability here. WP:NOT a London police directory. BTW, while we're at it, how about a list of policemen involved in or investigated by Operation Countryman. Now, that'd be notable. ;-) Tubezone 06:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The fact he doesn't have an article yet is irrelevant. He should have. And eventually, hopefully, he will have. What is "public notability" anyway? Notability is not decided by how many people in the street have heard of them, but by how significant they are. And I would argue that a police officer of that rank is most definitely significant enough for an article. A directory? If I listed every officer, that would be a directory. Writing articles about a handful of senior officers is most certainly not. -- Necrothesp 13:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Here's an idea: Why not have separate articles for each of the upper echelon offices in the Metropolitan Police? Many of the holders won't be notable once they retire, if they do turn out to be, then they can get they can get their own articles. I can agree that the offices are notable, even of the officeholders sometimes aren't. I don't think anyone could make a good argument that the office of Assistant Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police isn't notable. Tubezone 18:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Well, since I wrote the articles on the offices before I started writing the articles on the holders, that's already been done. See Assistant Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis! And I naturally disagree that the officeholders aren't notable. -- Necrothesp 18:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment that article about the Assistant Commissioners shows that having an article on each of the ACs of the Met is both finite and achievable, I'm a bit sick of hearing this slippery slope fallacy that if we let this though we'll practically have to list every police officer in London. I, for one, am very interested in UK police biographies, and the fact that Necrothesp has produced a decent Start-class article from available sources and archives demonstrates that Allan is indeed historically notable. All I would recommend is that the article cite specific stories in The Times etc., rather than just linking to the Times archive. --Canley 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see that specific sources have already been cited! --Canley 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Only just done that, so it probably wasn't there last time you looked! -- Necrothesp 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, Higher police officers of a country are of course notable. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ~~
• Keep, I've seen far shorter, less informative articles on wikipedia which have still served as invaluable material for those who use this encyclopedia for research. Plus, I worry that deleting this article may start a worrying trend which would undermine the efforts of the wikiproject to cover law enforcement effectivly, this article being part of that effort.SGGH 17:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Inspector of Constabulary and Asst Commissioner of the Met seem relatively important to me. Certainly verifiable. No doubt a trawl through the British national (sic) press of the day would find more things worth saying. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Just the OBE alone is enough to make him notable, but when you take into account his career and positions he is most definitely notable. Ben W Bell talk 08:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Never heard of him, but by any standards his was a highly distinguished career. So I am the wiser as a result of this article. And it's always better to create than destroy. --GwynH 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the article meets the bio notability requirements already Yuckfoo 02:51, 21 November 2006 (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.