Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Babar (2nd nomination)

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. Two relists have not produced a consensus. RL0919 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Babar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails GNG. The only information I can is the CBE. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can also only find confirmation that she exists (Mirror and Google books) and of the CBE. I had understood that a CBE made someone notable - see Talk:Notability (awards and honors), but on looking again and reading the earlier discussion about this article I don't think there was consensus. Tacyarg (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always held a CBE or above to be notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. There is substantial precedent for this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - It doesn't take long to find that there is very little coverage of the subject, and perhaps none that qualifies as significant. I don't see how a biography can be written based upon the available sources. So practically speaking, we get what we have, a fragment of a sentence from the relentlessly spare citation. As an aside, the year specified and linked to is incorrect — it's not the New Year's Eve Honours.

I do not value a sub-stub 'biography'. I did read the 'awards and honours' discussion. I cannot find, there or elsewhere, a statement wherein every CBE is guaranteed a biography. This is appropriate as there are too many people with this honour for it to be considered 'significant'. For comparative purposes, I took a look at the two higher ranks, of which there were typically no more than ten created each year combined (last few years excepted). In 2008, there were eight DBE/KBE created, seven of whom have pages and while none of them are expansive, it does seem that there was sufficient information available on each of them to write a biography. There were no GBE honours that year (FWIW, this is the level that I'd consider an SNG for). There should be sufficient material available to write the biography and I could not discover any with which this page might be fleshed out. Ultimately, the purpose here is to inform the reader and a husk of a biography fails at this so I must recommend 'delete'. ogenstein (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there is considerable precedent for a CBE or above to be notable. Many AfDs have decided that this is the case. The CBE is an exceptionally notable award only awarded to those who have contributed substantially to the country, usually at a national level. In a country of over 60 million people, 100-200 awards every year is not a lot. The GBE is an exceptionally rare honour, so I'm not sure what your point is there. I should also point out that the usual award to men as an equivalent to the DBE is a Knight Bachelor, not a KBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobel prize is exceptionally notable. For a given subject, only one (unless shared) is given out each year, so practically speaking, there is a limit to how many there are. The GBE has, from what I understand, a limit of 300 at any time. As such, wikipedia can have a list of GBE but there are too many CBE or DBE to do so. If there are too many to list, then it is a lot. As well, there are other countries with similar honours. Before long, 1/500 wikipedia pages would be covering these exceptionally notable honours, with 98% of them being stubs. If there isn't a meaningful defined restriction, as with the GBE, or with CC of the Order of Canada, then I think it is too large a net to cast.

To your aside, there are two names under KBE for 2008, and the OBE page classifies the two as the same (even if it discusses it in the text). If it is misleading, perhaps an update would help clarify. ogenstein (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The KBE and the DBE are at the same level, but the KBE is rarely awarded. Most men awarded a knighthood are appointed Knight Bachelor. Most women awarded the equivalent are appointed DBE. Just one of the peculiarities of the honours system. And no, there is no problem with creating stubs for people who are notable. We have generally made a cut-off point of CBE because far fewer of these are awarded than the lower OBE or MBE, where numbers of awards begin to mushroom, and they are generally only awarded for high achievement at a national level (whereas OBEs and MBEs may be awarded for achievement at a local level). To suggest that even a knighthood or damehood is not an indication of notability frankly shows a lack of understanding of the honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Before long, 1/500 wikipedia pages would be covering these exceptionally notable honours, with 98% of them being stubs.", oh, you mean similar to the 1/500 (or more) stubbies dedicated to notable sportspeople?, this is irrelevant, if the person is notable, they are notable, whether their page is a one line stub or a 5 page GA. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If they're actually notable but I don't believe that a one-line article is a good article. FWIW, I'd guess that sportstubs are beyond that level. I'd be up for changing both sportstubs and geostubs — even if it were by just folding them into a higher level page. I'm not going to advocate for an arbitrary fire hose. ogenstein (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and whats all this talk about "exceptional" honors and "Nobel prizes"? an honor/award needs to be "well-known and significant", see WP:ANYBIO, not "exceptional", of course someone who receives one of these significant (not necessarily exceptional:)) awards "are likely to be notable ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -@Bbb23:I know this user:Mothman. He is using multiple account. He is a new user. He writing wrong Policy information all of afD negative comments also he don’t know which article eligible for notable or not. Please check this user. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.115 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Blumpf (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is long-standing precedent for the CBE being sufficent to establish notability. The first AfD was a fairly unanimous Keep, and I don't see any reason to re-litigate the issue again and again. Atchom (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For additional discussion on whether a CBE is sufficient to demonstrate notability on its own (per ANYBIO1) -
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I'm the nominator) - Per WP:ANYBIO "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. 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." (my underline added on the last part). Insisting that ANYBIO1 means she has to have an article doesn't actually align with the ANYBIO policy. As we've all found, the only reason we can identify for this article is her CBE award. That's just not enough to reach WP:GNG on it's own. Based on a misinterpretation of ANYBIO, or a precedent set by a prior AfD that is being used to overwrite an existing policy (a quasi-policy that is now being discussed as if it were unchangeable), we're ignoring WP:NOCOMMON, and are left with a two-sentence stub that isn't likely to ever expand. How does treating the CBE as the sole criteria for notability improve Wikipedia? Orville1974 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It simply doesn't. The reader finds no new information after clicking her name at 2008_New_Year_Honours#Commanders_of_the_Order_of_the_British_Empire_(CBE). Blumpf (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of short, uninformative articles on Wikipedia where the individual has been included on the basis of a single criteria conferring 'automatic notability'. Sportspeople being among the most common. In this case, a CBE is awarded for having a 'prominent' role at a national level, or a 'leading' role at a local level, and/or for 'distinguished contribution' to any area. Those are literally criteria for notability, so why second-guess it? Hugsyrup (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's true about the sports articles and I'd support an effort to change that but WP:NSPORTS currently provides specific requirements for notability in each sport (e.g. play one game in NFL) which, even if it makes for too low a bar, is a clear bar and an objective one. Even the supporters of CBE make arbitrary distinctions between it and the lower honours. And they're basically the same distinction that those who oppose the CBE line make just applied at a different level. I would prefer if these reflexive articles were merged into a list of some sort (e.g. New York Yankees players of the 1920s, CBEs of 2008) and should sufficient material subsequently appear, they could diverge into a separate article. I'm always disappointed when I click through to an article and find it empty. ogenstein (talk) 09:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person is so few notable that nothing is known about her, except for a one time event. Is she even alive ? And if she is dead, where are the obituaries ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2019 (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.