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 delete. Sr13 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Alves Arbuthnot

[edit]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Comment - I didn't say he was the founder, I said he was a founder. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • What Hackney said. Moreover, a publisher most certainly does not "endorse" all the material it publishes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and per Giano.--Docg 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Merge into the bank, noting else is notable.--Docg 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data analysis: currently there are 86 entries under Arbuthnot family Arbuthnot family. Compare to 13 in Fairfax, 12 in Haldane. Consider Webster's Biographical Dict as a benchmark. Webster lists 2 Arbuthnots (John b.1667, Robert Keith) yet 5 for Fairfax and 7 Haldane. Were we to assume that Webster's has a fair ratio of notability, then either Arbuthnot should be cut back to about 5 (i.e., 2/5 of Fairfax). Otherwise, holding Arbuthnot steady at 86, then Fairfax and Haldane should be expanded to 215 (5/2*86) and 301 (7/2*86) articles respectively. In any case, something is amiss and the criteria for Arbuthnots needs to be tightened up. HG 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this subject here just qualifies as notable, I agree with much of HG's comments above but people are either notable (worthy of an article) or that are not. We do not want to start having pages entitled the "Higginbottom family" detailing the lives of numerous people of no consequence because one second cousin was momentarily a Member of Parliament in the 1880s. I was reading one of the Arbuthnot pages earlier (Ernest Kennaway Arbuthnot) in which one member of the family had done nothing of interest except become a Chief Constable in the 1920s, marry a glorified chorus girl and gain a couple of less than rare medals. At that time Chief Constable was largely (I believe) an honory position given to any upstanding member of the local gentry - note I say gentry not the higher aristocracy - not that that should make a difference to notability - but I know to some here it does! I think someone needs to "sit down" with Kittbrewster and reasonably say look - some of these pages can be improved and are of use - the others - well frankly they are not of use, these people are not notable lets have a sort through them and decide which can be dispensed with. Every British titled family has hundreds of lesser members who were/are awarded medals and various honory positions because of their connections and name rather than their rank and notability. Ivor No-Chin-Faceache, great grandson of the 14th Earl of Scrotum and was one of 1000,000 soldiers mentioned in despatches during World War I was doubtless brave, that he dragged a child out of a swimming pool in 1926 is commendable, that he was chairman of his local Rotary Club is admirable but none of these things make a man notable. Its a fine line but it has to be drawn sooner or later so it may as well be sooner. Giano 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[2] [3]- Kittybrewster (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, seems legitimate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but do you think that the editor of Burkes Peerage added it without being more than reasonably sure the information was correct? I have found a source for John Alves Arbuthnot being the Sub-Governor of "THE LONDON ASSURANCE INC. A.D. 1720"[4] John Vandenberg 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The on-line peerage is pretty reliable and I have added another on-line source as well as a paper one. Being a Justice of the Peace, a county High Sheriff, and founder of a major and well-known merchant bank must surely rank as notable? David Lauder 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this is interesting Kittybrewster uses as a ref: Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot "Memories of the Arbuthnots" (1920). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Yet the same publishers in the same year published "Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire" by Ada Jane Evelyn Arbuthnot [6]

Odd that two Arbuthnot wives should simultaneously publish works so similar - very odd! There is the possible explanation that Kittybrewster forgot to add the last part of the title - but would those qualifying Scottish counties include the Irish branch which it seems to? Then the name Ada Jane could have been Mrs Peter Arbuthnot - but why change the author's name. Too many questions? Plus the fact the wretched woman seems to be able to rmemeber people who died almost 100 years before she wrote her book - Amazing. I would like an answer.Giano 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Ada Jane and Mrs P S-M are one and tha same person - and the book is online on Kittybrester's own site with Kittybrewster owning the copyright of this 87 year old work. Giano 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That probably is legitimate - copyright in Scotland is 70 years after the death of the creator, so as long as she survived 17 years after writing the book her descendants would still own copyright. BTW, what the hell is Arbuthnot Latham - a minor bank that doesn't even exist - doing on ((UK banks)), especially given that the company that now owns it isn't there? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in British Journal of Sociology mentions a number of Arbuthnots: Col. George Arthbutnot, & Gerald Arbuthnot, both of who went into Parliament; Charles George Arbuthnot, a director of the Bank of England, and F.S and A.H, as pat of a list of those attending Eton. It does not mention this one at all. Nothing in JStor does. Nothing substantial in Google Scholar does (he's included in 4 lists in Notes and Queries). DGG 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment David I don't know who who you are nor realy care, but to me notable people are people are one's that have contributed something to benefit mankind in some way, either through medicine or science or some oher way, not self profit for profit alone, so onless this person did something other then for self profit then he is meaningless in my opinion.--padraig3uk 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paidrag, notable businessmen are also notable. Even politicians are. Even generals. For that matter, even murderers. The question is whether his commercial activites are notable enough among bankers, and whether enough reliable documentation exsists.
As for DNB, I would say as a minimum that everyone with a full article or a section in DNB is notable. A great many other people are also. I certainly would not limit WP to them. But it helps to have some accepted point. If someone were to say that none of that name were notable, we can show otherwise. Similarly all members of the Royal Society are notable. and so are many thousands of other scientists and scholars. I was primarily pointing at the wide availability of this references source, as a way of upgrading the biographies of those people who are included. But I'm glad to here from a contributor--if you have any comments about the reliability of either the criteria or the quality, I'd very much like to here them, and the talk page for the article on it would be the place. DGG 06:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the references seem to be connected to the primary author of this page a fourth reference does not cite its own sources. Giano 08:08, 13 May 2007 (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.
More