Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Sr13 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop)

Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another member of the prolific Arbuthnot family. Perhaps being Bishop of a minor diocese confers notability perhaps it does not. He has been here for over six months and his creator has still not found anything notable or interesting to say about him. It seems he is just another younger son (all upper middle class families had one) who entered the church and rose through the ranks because he had the rights name and contacts - although the page does not even explain that much. - The Arbuthnot family tree is linked (as usual) showing his relationship to a few notable people and hundreds of non-notable. I see no value in having this page here so suggest it is deleted unless someone can add something to prove otherwise. Giano 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. This article has no independent sources listed, just a link to the Arbuthnot family tree website. However, as a 19th-century bishop in Ireland, there will undoubtedly be some sources available which provide at least sufficient material for a stub article. So far as I can determine from a quick scan of the revision history, this article has never been tagged as {{unreferenced}}, so I have added that tag, and suggest that we wait a few months to see if editors can find suitable reliable sources. A Google search throws up a few brief references, such as this one, and I'm sure that there is more detail in print.
    It is worth noting that this article has been created and developed by User:Kittybrewster, an Arbuthnot who maintains the Arbuthnot genaeological website. It would be preferable for editors to take a cautious approach to the guidance set out in WP:COI, and refrain from creating articles on their own relatives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
  • Very weak keep per BrownHairedGirl. A Bishop of a mainstream church should have a few sources. Revisit in a couple of months and delete if no other sources have ben added by proponents of the Arbuthnots or other editors. Edison 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an obituary (a somwhat hagiographic one) of this bishop in the 1828 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine (London: J Nichols & Son) that confirms that this person was buried in Killaloe cathedral (which I assume to be St. Peter and St. Paul Cathedral, Ennis) and 1 paragraph in the 1823 edition of The Christian Journal, and Literary Register (New York: T. & J. Swords). Uncle G 17:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, Hardly! thats a Catholic church. There was little or no Anglican population in this area back then or even now. It my be a mainstream church in England/Dublin back then but it was a minority church in rural County Clare.--Vintagekits 17:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now as per BrownHairedGirl. A bishop for a major church should be notable. Davewild 18:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, it might be a major church where you are but it is not a major church where he was a bishop - I would assume less than 4% of the population would have he Anglican. Therefore he was not a Bishop of a major church. It was a Bishop only in title - the Arbuthnots do love a good title! See titular see --Vintagekits 19:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - My point (not very well put) is that a bishop of a major religion should probably be notable, regardless of whether the area they are bishop of, has many prople of that religion. Davewild 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment - Hi Dave, I understood the point, and I agree that Bidhops in general are notable especially in mainstream churchs, however, I would disagree that someone who is the head of a mainstream where there are little or no followers would be notable. Its a debatable point and I accept much of what you are saying but this is not a major diocese infact it no longer exists and has now been swallowed up and additonally he would only have been a Bishop in title without any of the following that usually goes with that title. Would the head Buddist in County Leitrim be notable - its a mainstream religion but there would be very few followers. However I would not be put out if there was a keep here and the article was improved. Its notability can be reassessed at a later state. Maybe nn tags should have been used first instead of AfD. regards--Vintagekits 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment. The Bishop of Killaloe was a bishop of the established Church, supported by tithes, and with all the status that came from the position of the established church. That makes it a notable position, but the notability of the holder of the post may be a different matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl, lets give the article a shot at improvement. The delete route can always be taken if this road fails... xC | ☎ 19:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ultra reluctant keep - As I've said elsewhere, while I think this does meet WP policy as it stands, I am strongly of the opinion that this highlights a problem in policy. As VK (almost) says, an Anglican bishop of a minor diocese in Connacht (lest we forget, Killaloe has a population of under 2000) is roughly equivalent to the chief rabbi of Riyadh, since this was probably the least Anglicised part of Ireland at that time. While I agree it should be kept under a strict reading of Wikipedia policy, I really don't see why this couldn't just be an entry in a list since it says nothing about the man other than "He was born - he had a job - he died". Since Kittybrewster, Wikipedia's leading expert on Arbuthnotology, can't find anything further to say about him, it's probably a very safe bet there is nothing further to say — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment maybe he is notable for having and extremely small bishopric. If they were only 4% Anglican in his area of responsibility, and the total population was 2000, then with 80 congregants how many priests was he in charge of? Very puzzling. Edison 21:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There will be more than that, the figure of 2000 is for the town but the diocese covered the surrounding countryside as well, plus he served pre-potato famine so the population was probably higher. This situation isn't unusual in Ireland even to this day, where each area has an Anglican bishop for historical reasons but the population - particularly in the west, like this - is overwhelmingly Catholic — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment As far as I know, and the Church of Ireland website seems to agree, the Anglican diocese of Killaloe, before it was merged with the Limerick diocese back in the 70's, included quite a lot of North Munster, covering much of County Clare and County Tipperary, including Nenagh and Roscrea. (It would have been based on the pre-reformation diocese of Killaloe.) Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am very interested as to why so many of the Arbuthnots use this [1] very uncomfortable looking building Rockfleet Castle as a maternity clinic. Why such an illustrious family should choose for their wives to give birth there is a mystery. I think the Arbuthnots and their history do stand up to too close scrutiny! I have a problem with that building being the ancestral seat and these people being listed as born there - Charles Arbuthnot in 1767; Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) born there in 1768; Thomas Arbuthnot 1776 as the sixth son of John Arbuthnot, Sr of Rockfleet Castle. Something is not right here that building is too humble, small,damp and plain for a family of late 18th century aristocrats. Giano 22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment This is a 16th Century Irish building we're talking about — the definition of "big" was somewhat different to modern times given that the typical home at the time would have been a wooden shack. The building looks pretty impressive by Irish late-Mediaeval standards. I have to point out, though, that none of the independent sites on the castle mention the word 'Arbuthnot', and a search on "Rockfleet Castle" +Arbuthnot appears to bring up 25 hits, all Wikipedia mirrors — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
From about 1750 the Irish gentry though had been living like this Giano 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a fair comparison - Russborough House is in Wicklow, a prosperous and heavily Anglicised area just south of Dublin whilst Mayo was (and is) the poorest part of Connacht, a poor subsistence-farming-based Gaelic-speaking region under de facto military occupation for the previous 600 years. The comparison's like comparing Montreal to Iqaluit or (pre 1990) East to West Berlin. I do agree there's something fishy going on here, since KB elsewhere says they all come from Kincardine, but attacking the building isn't a valid argument — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Google Books, folks. "Memories of the Arbuthnots" is, unfortunately, in snippet view, but from pp. 176–177, I can extract a reference in John Arbuthnot's will to a "Trust to finish my house of Rockfleet" and "present [illegible] house standing on the edge of the shore near the old half-ruined Rockfleet Castle". So it seems that the Arbuthnots weren't camping out in Richard an Iarainn's old pele tower. Perhaps KB can supply more details from the book. Choess 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[2] - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If the "Memories" book serves to substantiate Wikipedia articles about Arbuthnots, and Kittybrewster or a relative controls the copyright, why is it is snippet view? Sounds like a chance to open it up to viewing. Edison 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The whole thing's on kittybrewster.com here but be warned that each of the 528 pages is scanned in as an image and it's a system-crashing 100MB in size — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Putting aside the matter of Arbuthnotness for a moment, in general Church of Ireland and pre-disestablishment Anglican Bishops of Irish dioceses seem to achieve notability by virtue of their office, so in this case it seems that this particular article meets that criterion.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Greenshed 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, bishop is a fairly senior position in the church, even if his particular seat was a very minor one. Lankiveil 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Weak Keep, per Flowerpotman; bishops, IMO, are high enough in the hierarchy of things to deserve a stub, rather than just a name on a list, when looked up. That said, his obit in the Gentlemen's Magazine of 1828 (available on Google Books) is distressingly platitudinous. If his contemporaries had that little to say of him, there's probably little room for expansion. Choess 07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am unconvinced that his position equals notability and given he seems to be known for nothing else I can't really support keeping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep as the Bishop of a diocese of the then established church (despite its low number of adherents in this particular area) he seems to have some ex officio notability. David Underdown 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm willing to accept that Anglican bishops in the UK (including all of Ireland then) are per se notable. Carlossuarez46 18:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I also note that his predecessor and successor have articles that predate or are otherwise underlated to Kittybrewster. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but his predecessor Richard Mant is notable as an author & poet rather than as a bishop, and his successor Richard Ponsonby is a false-positive bluelink to a completely different Bishop Richard Ponsonby, in another diocese altogether, who died in 1815 so was unlikely to have been in any position to succeed Alexander A in 1828 — iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Having now read and seen further evidence on Kittybrewster's page of the amount and reliability of the research of these pages - I think we have to tread very carefully indeed! To maintain the credibility of the project Giano 19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a bit unfair - as Kittybrewster would not doubt agree, I'm no fan of the recent tidal wave of Arbuthnots, but I've no doubt this guy existed given the (non-"Memories...") obituary. Attack the articles for their faults, but attacking the author isn't the way to go about things — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Kitybrewster has read one out of date and out of print book, written by a member of his family about her family (which gives no reliable sources) and presented it here as fact. So many of the facts are in fact not facts that one hardly knows where to start. Giano 19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Apropos of nothing, but (I assume) the repeated downloading of Memories of... has crashed the server at arbuthnott.com but I will certainly concede that the book is genuinely available online - but as I've said elsewhere, as a family history by a family member, I don't take anything in it as credible unless it's backed up elsewhere. However, in this particular Arbuthnot's case I've no reason to doubt he exists, since he's also mentioned in non-Arbuthnot sources, and while personally I don't think he's notable, in terms of current Wikipedia policy he does warrant a keep. As I've already said, I think this highlights a problem in policy, but given that we have articles on Harry Potter's friends' pets I suppose he's keepable — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:52, 21 May *Keep notable, SqueakBox 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've posted on the talk page of WikiProject Anglicanism asking if they can give any advice on whether they consider bishops automatically N by virtue of their office both in general and in this specific case — it seems that, as the people most likely to be interested (and unconnected with any of the current ongoing feuds simmering here) they're best placed to give a balanced opinion. Apologies to anyone who considers this canvassing — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep -- On the one hand, this reminds me a little bit of those cases where somebody goes through the list of the Dukes of X or list of the Bishops of Y with a mission of eliminating redlinks. So he/she creates silly little stub articles saying that "NN (dates) was the 13th Bishop/Duke of Y/X" and putting in a succession box and leaving it at that. I utterly deprecate that; a redlink is better than a meaningless stub merely replicating what the list says. (I'm not normally anti-stub, by the way, as long as the stub contains at least a smidgeon of information not already contained elsewhere in the wikipedia.) All that said, this isn't quite an empty stub; it tells us a little bit more -- just not much. Most of the other stuff it tells us, alas, is Arbuthnot genealogy, which I understand is a slightly contentious issue. So I'd feel much happier voting keep if there were something else -- beyond mere a) biographical details; and b) Arbuthnot genealogy -- to make this article notable. As far as Anglican bishops in Ireland go, I'd say there's not quite automatic notatbility, but a definite presumption of notability, if you see what I mean. Doops | talk 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep (with option to merge to something else later retained). I have to think that an Anglican bishop by definition qualifies as notable. Also, I note this page] listed him as having been Lord Bishop of Killaloe. Having said that, I agree that a lot of the pages which basically say, "born, became X, died, replaced by Y" can and should be merged into something else after some time has passed, maybe a year. Unfortunately, many such stubs have a lot of data available, but no one to spend the time to expand them. Many of the List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria have maybe three lines of text, but one or more complete pages in a Coptic Encyclopedia I have recently found. I agree that such articles can and should be merged in time if they remain this short. However, I'm not sure enough time has passed for this to be done here. And outright deletion is probably not the answer. John Carter 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Would it be correct to say that his Diocese would cover a lot fewer people than say, a Diocese in England as most people in Ireland were not Anglicans? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Any evidence to support your assertion, and even if there is any evidence to support his Diocese contasined less adherents than those in the UK (eg it could have been larger etc), SqueakBox 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I suspect it would make an interesting study - size of diocese to population. Keep in mind Bishops are appointed by the Government not the church, so what sort of person would a British Government appoint to an Anglican diocese in Ireland at a very politically sensitive time - surely someone can expand this properly. I think "Lord Bishop" was the term referring to all Bishops who were not suffragan at the time (if they had suffragan Bishops at that time) it probably implies a seat in the House of Lords, why create a page and say nothing. If Kittybrewster wants to save this page he should start researching. Giano 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would have thought a highly sensitive gov appointed post would go to somebody notable, and surely these comments of yours should be on the article talk page, SqueakBox 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No not at all, I'm playing devil's advocate, I have no wish to see a page with possibilities deleted - I am just sick of bailing Kittybrewster's pages out. Now, following what I have said, can you see a way forward for this page, if so please edit it accordingly. Giano 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggest your comments should go to the talk page because they are interesting. I can have a go at bettering the page, too, you are right there, SqueakBox 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
To answer your questions: 1) an Irish diocese in this era would have had many fewer congregants than an English one. That said, though, as a state church (at the time) the CofI wouldn't care about a diocese's # of congregants but rather its total population. 2) "Lord bishop" is a traditional title for any diocesan bishop in the British Isles; its use here does not imply that Arbuthnot took a turn sitting in the House of Lords (between 1801 and 1871 four Irish bishops / Archbishops, chosen by rota, sat there). 3) Regarding the suggestion that appointments to the see of Killaloe were politically sensitive govt posts, I think you're barking up the wrong tree -- it was mostly just the old-boys network. You needed family connections and allies among the political classes and a certain level of education and coherency. We're not talking about the Viceroy of India here. Doops | talk 00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And this Arbuthnot did indeed have the necessary family connections. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Who do you possibly imagine reads the talk pages of Kittybrewster's dead end dull pages. The only way to get them improved or deleted is to nominate them here. Or prove the facts wrong myself by correcting and expanding. Kittybrewster in his present form is a liability to Wikipedia. Giano 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep based on current consensus of the notability of higher levels of church hierarchy. However, in common with many editors above I believe the value of 'x was y, from a to b, and related to z' articles rather than a mention in a history of the position. Nuttah68 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - being a bishop is notable enough for me, but it would be awfully nice if something other than pure genealogy was added to his article - what did he do? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Being an established bishop qualifies for notability automatically, independent of the article creator's association with the family. This article should not have been nominated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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.