Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest James Scott

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. Consensus that OBE is not automatically conferring notability, and therefore I find the SIGCOV arguments persuasive. References helpfully provided by Necrothesp to identify why he received the OBE, will themselves not qualify as SIGCOV. Daniel (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest James Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 13:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, presumed notable under WP:ANYBIO, as the recipient of a significant award or honour, namely an OBE. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't checked whether there's any other reason for notability, but being an OBE is certainly not one, per countless previous AfD discussions. He would need to be at least a CBE before WP:ANYBIO could come into play. (And, I am enough of a pedant to point out, one doesn't receive an OBE, but becomes one.) Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not finding SIGCOV, OBE doesn't seem notable enough. Zawed (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, primary sources only. An OBE isn't a significant award or honour. A CBE might qualify, but definitely not an OBE. They are a dime a dozen, as are MCs. And one is appointed to the Order. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An OBE is not sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, although it certainly contributes to notability. A CBE would be sufficient, as they're much rarer and we have always held them to be sufficient. However, you would have thought that someone appointed OBE for services to a sport would have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. A purely local sports figure would usually only qualify for an MBE, which suggests he was heavily involved in water polo nationally. I wonder who he was? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here's the answer. He was an international water polo referee who refereed at the 1952 Olympics. He was president of the Amateur Swimming Association in 1967/68[1] and a member of the International Water Polo Board.[2] The London Water Polo League Referee's Cup is named after him.[3] -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2021 (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.