OK - starting a review. Had to catch up on a few of my own family areas that needed attention.
So obviously no Wikipedia page (yet), although there does seem to be potential for Notability based on the World's Record. It's an unusual record, very niche, but definitely there. I'm not entirely sure how they can be certain there was no smaller dog ever used by any police force, but knowing Guinness, it has more to do with one presented to them as opposed to anything in history. So we'll accept that it's a World's Record and go from there.
In my mind, the trainer and the dog are certainly tied together, so I don't have a problem acknowledging them as a whole, so the argument that it's the dog that's famous and the officer wasn't seems irrelevant. At least that's how I'd go with it. So it we accept the dog is Notable, then the officer is as well.
So the only remaining component is evidence. The World's Record site certainly keeps documentation on all their records, so that's one. I'm generally more comfortable with at least 2 stable sites with data on the Notable and a few other supporting ones that might be less stable, but that's just me. So if we use Guinness as the anchor, I see lots of obituary news notices (not all that useful for Notability, but helpful as supporting sites - however, many of them will go down eventually), I do see a decent You Tube (temporary typically), Reddit (also temporary), Pinterest, some earlier news stories (some back in 2006 or earlier), Facebook, and plenty more. In fact, it took me to page 10 of searches before I ran out of ones that were clearly connected to Midge and Officer McClelland. The only issue I really saw was the only non-temporary information appears to be Guinness, but there's a ton of other supporting documentation on him. I'd put him in that gray area where it could go either way.
I wouldn't oppose putting the Notables Sticker on him. However, the only issue would be "would they still be Notable if someone used a smaller dog and beat his record"? I guess he would be a former record-holder at that point, but do we then wish to acknowledge all the former Guinness record holders? And for that matter, all the current ones too? It does bear some thought, as I've always considered some Guinness records to be quite an achievement, although there are some that are a bit silly and trivial. So I guess if we acknowledge that they would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, then Guinness records would be a potential source for Notability, but not a guarantee. And potentially could be temporary, if situations change.
