Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Loxley

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The article was discussed long enough, and I do not see any consensus emerging from the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Loxley[edit]

Gerald Loxley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable aviator. He is mentioned in thepeerage.com but can't find him in Burke's Peerage (via a free search). Nothing in this article indicates notability besides being related to Lord Byron Gbawden (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "free search" in Burke's Peerage - qv: BOOTH, Bt Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (incl already in refs)

  • Question Delete. Does receiving the Légion d'honneur confer notability? There is nothing else to make him notable. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer to the above, in my view, is that conferral of the Légion d'honneur in itself may not justify sufficient notability for a Wiki entry, although it is undeniably a great honour. However, Wiki notes elsewhere qv: Aerial reconnaissance in World War a "recurrent pattern of reconnaissance not gaining recognition commensurate with its importance developed during these years". Here is a chance to redress that imbalance, not to mention his family connections (ie. with the Lords Byron & Lord Bingham of Cornhill) which, in other articles, seemingly would also qualify for his inclusion. Not sure why there is an issue? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This article is not linked to by any except the lists of medal recipients. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for righting perceived wrongs. Family connections are no indicator of notability, nor is there any other. In short, that is the issue here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you too, but this is not an attempt to right any wrong perceived or not. The fact remains that Major Loxley was a notable and decorated aviator of the First World War, qv. www.nationalarchives.gov.uk but because of the nature of his military service much of the juicy info about him will remain classified until 2018 (100 years from the end of the Great War). Let me check what is permissible to include on Wiki and revert. L'honorable —Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Légion d'honneur does not confer automatic notability. Although the order is France's highest honour, the lower levels are extremely common, equating to no more than an MBE or low-level bravery decoration in British terms. Many were awarded to British officers in WWI. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise how urgent it is to get permission of Major Loxley's WWI exploits so as to satisfy above? Awaiting clearance for Loxley's military service to be published in addition to http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9750072 (as mentioned on another page not many people have write-ups about them in the National Archives). Many thanks. L'honorable 01:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there are thousands of officers' service records in the National Archives. Purely routine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I closed this discussion with a delete result for the article, but have restored the article and reopened this discussion, per discourse at my talk page (diff). North America1000 08:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in reply to the last question from L'honorable (talk · contribs), it is not at all urgent to view his Naval records, it will almost certainly make no difference. They are highly unlikely to reveal anything notable, any more than do the military records of most servicemen. Also, the National Archive record you refer to appears to be a single sheet, probably a standard form maintained for every serviceman with the Navy, and as such it would contain nothing to support his notability. So this is just a non-issue here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Steelpillow: not much is known about Major Loxley publicly for the very good reason that his role in the First World War was highly secretive. It is beyond doubt that he was a notable WWI military officer; I, and others, will be in a position to disclose more info once the time bar about his military activities is lifted. Loxley's achievements are worth wider appreciation, but not worth getting into difficulties with the authorities. You seem thoroughly opposed to this pioneering British aviator of WWI, who later worked for the UN, appearing on Wiki's pages & I don't know why - perhaps because he was nominally based in Paris (or you simply don't know anything about him)? Can't think of any other reasons. Cheers, L'honorable (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      LOL. That is some of the most absurd paranoia I have met in a long time. More to the point here, you challenge my WP:GOODFAITH. No, I have no knowledge of him. My opposition is based solely on the encyclopedic need for WP:VERIFICATION, which cannot be met unless your claims can be verified by an independent account of his exploits. If he is as notable a spy as you suggest, then I am sure that such an account will eventually be told. Until then, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Once deleted, it can always be recreated again when the time is right. I am sorry that you must wait so long, but that is Wikipedia's way. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say other than that I bow to your superior judgement (& look at the reference notes)? Au revoir, L'honorable (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I am bowing out of this discussion since the tone of this commentary is becoming highly patronising... (eg. LOL)
  • Keep. Borderline, but I think the AFC and four foreign decorations push him over the notability bar. That is quite an unusual haul for a mid-ranking officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that a fistful of medals is notable in its own right, they are all run-of-the-mill and plenty of old campaigners had similar collections. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gbawden: noting that you initially tabled this article for deletion, I trust you don't mind my highlighting its being relisted today? Presuming that it is not my place to participate in such deliberations, after subsequent review (since the deletion notice) I compared Major Gerald Loxley's WWI and later UN service with those of others already included in Wikipedia's pages qv: Category:Royal Air Force officers & Category:Royal Naval Air Service aviators and fail to see how Loxley is in any way less notable than many included in these pages. Please advise. L'honorable (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I should hope there will be a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus, but how can this be achieved?
PPS. qv: Syria-Cilicia Commemorative Medal article - please advise - Major Loxley did not have two clasps so the only image available on Wikipedia is an incorrect representation (perhaps it should be taken down?) L'honorable (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a correct image of this medal for Wikipedia's use. L'honorable (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, answer was there all along. Thanks, Necrothesp! (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after having a tidy up of the article and a search for better references I have to come to the conclusion that the supported facts dont really support notability, only the Legion d'honneur is supported by a reference most of the article is puffed out by what is non-relevant family history type stuff, I cant find any evidence that he was a pilot (certainly didnt have a RAeC licence) or was awarded an AFC. Just another British officer who did some good stuff but we have no evidence of the notability bar being passed. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a newcomer to Wikipedia I am frankly amazed by the amount of discussion that has emanated from my creation of this article about Gerald Loxley. I have been going through other articles of RAF & RNAS pilots/aviators and unless I am thoroughly mistaken his bio is as, if not more, worthy than many of them. I should hope that Wikipedia likes to be consistent in its approach & not because once one or two folk decree to see articles damned for no other reason than it is difficult, sometimes, to change one's mind. I am wading through a list of Grandees of Spain at the moment, and even though I know a great deal about the subject I am having difficulty in understanding some (you might say, many) of the edits made on this subject. Could somebody tell me what is wrong with Major Gerald Loxley as compared with other RAF officers on Wikipedia? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • & whilst this experience has been illuminating, should any doubts remain, please do not hesitate to ask at L'honorable (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC) and I trust you can see your way to removing the article for deletion tag before too much further energy is expended?[reply]
      WP:OTHER is not an argument in its own right. It may well be that articles on some other airmen also need deleting. What is important with the present article is whether it meets the criteria at WP:PERSON and WP:MILPEOPLE. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      But you are right that we sometimes make inexplicable or downright bad edits, we are all guilty of that at one time or another. I think you were just unlucky to pick such a borderline case for one of your first articles and I do hope you will not hold it against us. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steelpillow: your message above is appreciated; I certainly won't hold the fact that Wikipedia applies such scrutiny against anyone! Having reviewed Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it would seem to me that Loxley more than qualifies, not least on account of being director of surveillance aircraft production at Paris (1916-18). I also note that Gbawden launched a somewhat partisan appeal for comment among Wikipedians: "Can Milhistorians please weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Loxley?" Is this the best way for Wikipedians to petition to get their way? Thank you again for your helpful comments, and I trust you may be able to view Loxley's inclusion on Wikipedia favourably. Best L'honorable (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Loxley interest will no doubt extend beyond military to social history, Europe in the early 20c, etc..., but let's get over this hurdle first - many thanks
May not be notable but "director of surveillance aircraft production at Paris (1916-18)" is not something in the article and we can only work on what we can see, we cant base discusssion on unknown attributes. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
L'honorable Do not mistake a request for additional input into this discussion as a partisan attempt to get rid of this article. Nothing in my request on the MILHIST page indicated any bias. Having said that I still think this person fails GNG and is not notable but we are scrabbling for reasons to keep it. Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gbawden: much appreciate your being in touch and for endeavouring to keep this article. What is GNG by the way? Many thanks. L'honorable (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is Wikipdedia's general notability guideline at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, often linked to using the shorthand WP:GNG. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Necrothesp's final view that Loxley's decorations signify considerable if unobtrusive notability. Such unobtrusiveness was only to be expected of someone successfully engaged in military intelligence. But his military decorations, reflecting this success, speak for themselves. Ammochostos Ammochostos (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that with the references provided here and in the article, that this person does meet WP:GNG, if barely - there are many primary/non-reliable sources to wade through here unfortunately. I think one of the confusing parts of all of this is that the article suffers from quite a bit of WP:OR. Chrisw80 (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is convincing enough to keep at best. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you are aware that we have no reliable references that he was awarded anything other than the Legion d'honneur and the Order of the Crown of Italy. MilborneOne (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @MilborneOne: I am beginning to think that I am wasting my time here - you have reworded the Loxley article making it read incorrectly. I have now amended it to read correctly again, ie. he did not receive the Order of the Crown of Italy in 1919 - he received it in 1916. This tag for deletion is a major put off for anyone wishing to add anything sensible to the article, particularly since so much argument has ensued - only seasoned Wikipedians know the significance of this tag & to me it looks pretty serious. Major Loxley's endeavours relate to Spain as well - there was much to keep an eye on in that country during the First World War - he was also fluent in French as somebody blandly noted above (but didn't care to point out its significance). Loxley was very much a pioneer in military intelligence which involved him in flying the planes - they weren't big enough to have crews in those days. Also someone I think you has gone to the trouble of deleting many of his military decorations (including the Imperial War Museum website entry - citing it as being a blog!), which can I only presume to be some sort of attempt to dumb down his article thereby reducing the likelihood of Loxley as being regarded as notable. So concerned am I about some Wikipedians' apparent disregard for British WWI veterans that I have had the privilege of being allowed by a member of his family to take a photo of his baptismal bible & a family photograph which I have now uploaded for the benefit of Wikipedia. It should go without saying that there should be no more messing around with this entry, such as deleting Loxley's being a recipient of the French and Belgian Croix de guerre (he had many more decorations for your information), and a decision should be made promptly as to whether or not it should be kept. I suggest keep. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      PS. This whole process started out with Gbawden falsely stating Loxley couldn't be found in Burke's Peerage & Baronetage - when will it stop?
The main problem is you keep bringing out information that is not supported by the references and not mentioned in the article, clearly if you have sources that support what you have said on this it could swing the argument. I removed the "IWM" reference as it is actually a family history blog that was being used to support the AFC, it is user provided content so is not official and not reliable, if he did in fact have an AFC why is it not mentioned in the London Gazette? The other awards are not supported by references either which is why they are removed. You clearly have a source for this information, if it is reliable then just add it to the the article, I would suggest that some of this discussion is best taken up on the talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding Loxley did not return to the UK until a couple of years after the Great War being awarded his gongs by Special Dispensation (since he was abroad). HMG no doubt didn't necessarily want to highlight his military activities overseas, and I see no need for yet another layer of bureaucracy by way of a Talk page, which you have set up. What will this achieve? Also it would appear that the Imperial War Museum website is regulated by an IWM curator, namely Charlotte Czyzyk: qv. https://livesofthefirstworldwar.org/ . If Major Loxley is not of sufficient note in your opinion so be it - I really had not anticipated getting so bogged down with this so please make a decision - much appreciated. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is where discussion not related to deletion should happen not here, His notability for an article must be based opn reliable sourced facts, we cant make a decision on what we can not see or prove. The decision to delete will be taken by a somebody else not involved in the discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me - there is/was/has been clearly plenty of info about Major Loxley (both present and deleted) which can enable an independent arbitrator in the decision-making process, so unless you have other plans I suggest we leave the arbitrator to it. By the way, I trust "we can't make a decision" refers to the collective "we", ie. an abstract concept of all Wikipedians together ..... "the decision to delete" statement also smacks of some degree of certainty on your part of its being deleted (unless you meant to say "decision to delete or not")? Or, are you judge, jury and..? It's all getting a bit much - there will surely be thousands and thousands of articles on Wikipedia worthy of deletion if Loxley is deemed unnotable. ¡Que pasa! L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Gerald Loxley @MilborneOne: you still carry on - I've already explained it, except I suppose your only saving grace is that the wording keeps getting mangled. 1. he flew airplanes; 2. he was spotted for aerial reconnaissance; 3. he still flew airplanes (for reconnaissance); 4. this is the bit you keep protesting about.... However, I still fail to understand what your problem is with this article? Why oh why set up yet another layer of chat show - nothing useful will come out of it. L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not least to free MilborneOne for more Wiki-useful missions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'honorable (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Thanks![reply]

@MilborneOne: so as to save wasting a lot more time: what is your preference? Delete / Keep ? Many thanks L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have already declared one way or the other further up the page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which way? L'honorable L'honorable (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. quoting your "Comment just to note that his RAF Officer's service record says very little, temporary lieutenant in the RNVR in March 1915, Lieutenant Commander RNVR December 1916, mention he worked at the Ministry of Munitions in Paris, had two hospital visits August 1919 and November 1919, spoke French and Spanish, demobbed January 1920. Nothing remarkable, no mention of an AFC only the Legion d'honneur. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)"
Please could we bring an end to this childish contre-temps? By now if you have not got a handle on who Loxley was & what he did for the war effort (qv. "nothing remarkable"!) then I cannot see what will ever satisfy you. L'honorable (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to end it is to stop rising to the bait. Just don't reply. Whoever makes the final judgement will not be a child but will make up their own mind as to whose points are the more valid - whoever had the last word is not going to impress anybody. (and I stand by that even if it's me). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:00, 29 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerald_Loxley&oldid=1078088907"