Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Alves Arbuthnot

John Alves Arbuthnot

John Alves Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non notable. Being a businessman, the son of a baronet, or part of the Arbuthnot family walled garden does not make someone notable, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Arbuthnot family being a walled garden is unfortunate. But peerage and baronetcies do convey notability; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage (part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Baronets and peers may be notable, but that's a seperate argument. However this person is neither a peer nor a baronet, please read the article and the nomination. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. After talking to Vintagekits, I've come to the conclusion I've mixed up Baron and Baronet. Since he couldn't have inherited the second title, he's not nobility and thus not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the fact I support keeping the articles on baronets, this person is just a businessman, and their are no decent sources cited. Perhaps a mention in his father's article. J Milburn 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. OK so the article tell us he worked for a living and had children, fails WP:BIO. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- disruptive nomination as part of a campaign against the Arbuthnot family. Astrotrain 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Please comment on the notability not the nomination.--Vintagekits 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the only possible claim to notability is being a JP, but nothing to indicate he was involved in any high-profile case etc that could raise him over the bar. BTW, he was definitely not a baronet (although personally, I think there's nothing at all notable about baronets either, given the sheer quantity of them and the meaninglessness of the title) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, sources are poor and carry only trivial information with no depth of coverage.--Vintagekits 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to be a non-notable 19th century businessman. Being named Arbuthnot is not enough to achieve inherent notability on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could create an "Arbuthnotpedia" to provide a place for complete details of all persons in that distinguished family tree. Edison 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - It already exists - where do you think all these Arbuthnot articles are coming from? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, as this is a member of your family I am not sure you should be !voting in this AfD due to WP:COI.--Vintagekits 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. That bank he founded exists since 1833. That makes the bank notable by sheer age, and founders of long-standing corporations and organizations are notable too. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not convinced that old companies are inherently notable, and the article on the bank currently holds a notability tag- show me some sources that prove this bank is notable, I will change my mind about this person. JMilburn 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The fact that Arbuthnot Latham was one of the accepting houses shows its status. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, simply not notable. Burntsauce 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mgm. This is is the biography of the founder of a merchant bank which still exists after 170 years. Yes, it would be nice if it was expanded, so I have tagged it with {{UK-business-bio-stub}}. It's a pity to see the discussion on Kittybrester's talk page, which makes it clear that this is part of a pattern of bad faith nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)