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)

#One Night In Hackney ^{Night In Hackney connect}

• 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)

#Barryob ^connect

• 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)

#Vintagekits ^connect

• Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

#Padraig3uk ^connect

• 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)

• Comment: As a member of that family, User:Kittybrewster should comment and should provide any relevant information that isn't in the article nor earlier in this discussion, so long as she identifies her conflict of interest. However, simply providing a keep not-a-vote and an assertion (without identifying herself as a family member) is not useful and is frowned upon under WP:COI. Providing sources of independent non-trivial coverage would be far more useful. Barno 20:28, 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)

• Comment. I think its pretty pathetic that you are attacking the nominator instead of focusing on the notability of the individual. If Kitty is going to create a stub article for every single person in his family then he is going to get this attention. The is no evidence that the bank was notable then or what size it was or or the link to its current incarnation so everything you have just said is WP:OR - try being objective in future rather than blindly sticking up for your mate from the Baronet Project - you are becoming like some of the other editors!--Vintagekits 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:CIVIL, please. I have given my !vote on the basis of how the article, not out of any loyalty to anyone. As I have said before, you and Kittybrewster and a circle of others are engaged in an increasingly disruptive dispute; please desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - as per Mgm and BHG. This stub could be developed but the subject has notability as a founder of a merchant bank.--Bill Reid | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It is disgraceful that some editors have, in a bad faith manner, appear to target every stub article that this well respected contributor has created.--Bill Reid | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't say he was the founder, I said he was a founder. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Your knowledge of the history of banking is regretably very poor. Please read Merchant bank --Bill Reid | Talk 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per arguments put forward by Vintagekits, padraig3uk, Edison et al Cloveoil 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The article is more about his abilities in the procreative department than about anything else. And here on this side of the pond, one got the impression that being a titled nobleman meant you didn't have work for a living. I guess inflation has hit the titled lords as well. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Quite simply is not notable. --Domer48 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

#Domer48 ^connect

• Delete Of the two sources cited in the article, one is a family memoir (not independent) and the other is a directory listing in a peerage guide (trivial). Arguments of type "All X are notable," reflect a misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• The family memoir was published Allen & Unwin, a major publisher. That makes it a reliable source. Tyrenius 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's reliable, but it's not really independent of the subject. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• The publisher is independent of the subject, and the publisher endorses the material. This is entirely different to a self-published source. Tyrenius 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What I'm getting at is that WP:N calls for coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which I take to mean completely independent, ie "that person is important, I'll write about him", whereas with the book being written by a member of the family the independence is diminished. Even ignoring that, apart from his offspring there isn't much in the way of non trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Mgm, Billreid and BHG. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)