Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander George Arbuthnot

Alexander George Arbuthnot

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

Non notable shopkeeper, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Somewhat unfair article description in the nomination. Florida Indian trader 1803-1818, tried in absentia by Andrew Jackson for aiding hostile Indians, and hanged from the mast of his trading schooner. Apparent Congress passed a resolution condemning the executions as a result of foreign pressure. The family tree which is the only mentioned source does cite a contemporary newspaper--I've added it to the article--my remote access doesn't want to connect to the likely source for it, Gale's Early American Newspapers)

But let's keep an eye out for other Arbuthnots of much lesser interest or importance. DGG 04:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm only going by the article - He had a store near St Augustine. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, it is quite possibly that the incident and trial is notable, however the sources are very poor and not from recognised reliable sources, however I dont believe that the individual himself is notable.--Vintagekits 16:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep a figure in a notable enough historical incident. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 05:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although it would seem more prudent to move to Arbuthnot and Ambrister Incident.e.g. Biographical information on both is slim and of questionable encyclopedic value, but the trial and execution continue to be important and have resonance e.g. for the current Guantanamo military commission. It gets about 4 pages in this 71-page document prepared for Congress in 2004.--Dhartung | Talk 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I think that's a good option. There's a lack of independent information available about Arbuthnot himself, but some on the case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, just spotted this after I had proposed the same. As I said below, the incident is notable but not the person.--Vintagekits 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Oh good. So the person is totally detached from the incident. I wish you'd apply this rule to some of your IRA articles. David Lauder 13:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:A, not to mention WP:BIO. Being named ARBUTHNOT is not sufficient reason to have a Wikipedia aricle. Edison 07:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: notable as an interesting historical figure who should be recorded in an encyclopaedia where the editors are aware, as we now are. This is currently a stub and needs expanding, with further references if possible, not deletion. It is a pity that the team running around flagging up AfDs on anyone they can locate with the surname Arbuthnot did not spend more time engaging in constructive work for Wikipedia, rather than destructive. David Lauder 07:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's existed for a year, so perhaps instead of attacking the nominator you'd like to expand the article now? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: I'm afraid that sneering remarks such as "non notable shopkeeper" speak for themselves. David Lauder 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Query:David Lauder, what do you think of my proposal to make it an article about the incident including both men, rather than a biography of just one? --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: May be a good idea. I had no input into the article myself but he seems an interesting historical figure who should not be deleted altogether. David Lauder 09:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a Wikiproject that might be suitable for this topic? It looks like something that could be both notable and attributable, but it might not be possible to find online sources. --Charlene 07:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: Agreed. Even today, most of the billions of academic and historical writings are simply not available in the Internet. Books remain the basis of knowledge. Whatever we can uplift and transfer on-line is a bonus for everyone. David Lauder 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Charlene, WikiProject Military history seems appropriate, as the case was a notable event during the Seminole War. It would probably fit within the purview of WikiProject Florida as well. --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It does fall within the WikiProject Florida scope and Kittybrewster notified the membership there (thanks!). --Kimon^talk 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Very notable incident during the Seminole War. International repercussions and had permanent effect on General Jackson's reputation. No replies required from my shadow trolls. - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, "International repercussions and had permanent effect on General Jackson's reputation" - yes the incident caused this not the person. Is there any chance the you could start being a little more objective when it comes to articles that you have created about your own family - remember WP:COI--Vintagekits 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Clear demonstration, if it were needed, of the malice motivating these AfDs against anyone with the surname Arbuthnot. David Lauder 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, What?!?! I didnt nominate this AfD. Kittybrewster has been warned about his WP:COI when ity comes to editing articles the he has created about members of his own family (and probably shouldnt havent !voted here either). I dont see the malice in that. Additionally he was been warned before about breaching WP:CANVAS yet he has posted this messege here.--Vintagekits 16:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to Ambrister and Arbuthnot incident (alphabetical order) - This article is not really about Alexander George Arbuthnot it is more about the incident which seems notable but not the person.--Vintagekits 13:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Repeat: you've already said that above. David Lauder 16:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, are you trying to say that I am double voting? (like someone did in the last AfD! no names mentioned!) I was argeeing with a comment above, this is my official !vote.--Vintagekits 16:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG and Kittybrewster. As noted, the article needs a good re-write to make historical importance clear in the introductory paragraph. — ERcheck (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unattributed with questionable notability. No opposition to a properly sourced & verifiable article about the incident itself. /Blaxthos 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I think it would be a whole lot easier to gain consensus by making this article about the incident and mention the person in a section. If enough attributable information is added, then it may be spun off into an article of its own. --Kimon^talk 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt anyone has a problem with somebody producing an article on the incident. The article we have does not breach copywrite. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The incident provides a fascinating glimpse into the period in American history. The fact that this person is central to the incident makes him notable. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident - AG Arbuthnot is not notable other than for the fact that he wasn't at his own trial and then got hanged causing some international repercussions. The rest of his life is not commented upon and thus I can only conclude was neglible to the course of history. An article of his own is therefore unjustified, however, as noted by others, this incident is however probably notable. --New Progressive 17:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Rename. I'd like to see more reliable sources provided, too, but for now the document from Congress tends to support the notion that this was a notable incident. --kingboyk 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete or rename and rewrite The incident is notable; this Arbuthnot isn't (not, for instance, mentioned in DNB.) The only data not related to the incident are the genealogical notes; are these likely to interest non-Arbuthnots? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Actually the sons were involved. "But the prey had been forewarned. A letter from Arbuthnot to his son had reached the place and had been explained to Bowlegs, who had been ever since employed in sending the women and children across the broad Suwanee into those inaccessible retreats which render Florida the best place in the world for such warfare as Indians wage. The troops reached the vicinity of the town, and in a few minutes drove out the enemy and captured the place. The pursuit was continued on the following morning by General Gaines; but the foe had vanished by a hundred paths, and were no more seen." - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident (note that "incident" should not be capitalized). This was a major diplomatic incident involving Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Lord Castlereagh, et. al. Pick up any book on Andrew Jackson or the Seminole Wars (e.g. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars) and you're likely to find this discussed. If someone at some point finds significant published, reliable info on Arbuthnot, his bio can always be spun out in a separate article again. —Kevin Myers 20:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - legitimate encyclopedic content, and should not become embroiled in any way in the controversy about other "Arbuthnot" articles. Newyorkbrad 21:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep- clearly a disruptive bad faith nomination as part of the nominator's campaign against the Arbuthnot family. Astrotrain 08:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Clearly a notable character of the Seminole War, although the opening para needs rewriting to assert notability. DGG's comment near the top emphasises that this is a clearly bad faith nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. ONIH has now nominated another article in bad faith. Namely the notable founder of a successful merchant bank, John Alves Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The fact that some editors want the article renamed to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident demonstrates in itself the notability of this Arbuthnot. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Nonsense, these criminals were killed for breaking the law in an incident that was notable, it was not the individuals that is notable its the incident.--Vintagekits 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Interesting parallel we have here, don't you think? Here is a man who set out to help the indigenous population against the new "incomers" who he perceived were giving them a pretty raw deal. I would have thought that you would have appreciated such a person. Does this resonate? Think Ireland here. --Bill Reid | Talk 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - what are you on about? Please try and stick to the notability issue this is not the United Nations.--Vintagekits 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Your statement "these criminals were killed for breaking the law" yet "[Congress] did pass a resolution condemning the executions". --Bill Reid | Talk 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, the convictions were not questioned - the punishment for these crims was what was questioned. This is not the place for this discussion - if you want to carry on please do it on the articles talkpage.--Vintagekits 20:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to Arbuthnot and Ambrister incident. Per comments above, the incident is notable while the individual criminals are not. -Will Beback · † · 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not criminals. Unlawfully tried by military courts. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: simply not notable. --Domer48 19:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as appears notabl;e, SqueakBox 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appear to be notable as an incident in history. Bios and incident should be merged with redirects to each. --Tbeatty 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and verify the refs. Seems historically notable. Shyamal 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/merge. Non-notable individual. The incident itself is worth a combined article.GiollaUidir 09:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I think it would be great to have an article about the whole incident including the other injured party, but it doesn't look like such an article exists at the moment. After its creation an argument could be made to merge this into some more comprehensive coverage. As it stands this person is notable for his ultimate end in the incident even if nothing else was known about him. A sitting president overriding a military tribunal to see to the execution of a Scottish trader because of his involvement with natives? You can't say an incident such as this is notable and still claim the people involved are not. How about this for an article: "non-notable person A executed by non-notable person B for involvement with non-notable group C at a non-notable time in the history of a non-notable country." Why should anyone care that a person was killed? The history of many people would be lost if not for their involvement in some incident. Be honest. How many people knew who Custer was before they were told of his involvement in a certain "incident?" Sometimes the incident is massive in scale and sometimes it is just a stepping stone to larger conflict. You just can't reasonably edit history on that basis. Aspenocean 09:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per BHG and Aspenocean. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)