Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Thomas Arbuthnot

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Thomas Arbuthnot

Not a speedy because of some claim to notability, but doesn't seem to have any place here. Possible listify. Stifle 00:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Expand to establish notability. For the time being, weak keep for the opportunity for someone to flesh it out. 147.70.242.21 00:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. As the very model of a modern major-general, I am sure that something could be said about him. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing more than a line clipped off a geneology page [1], and as far as we know he's not notable. Peyna 01:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence given of notability. nothing about notability comes up on google. there have been thousands of 20th century senior military officers. Most of them did nothing particularly notable individually. Bwithh 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
1838-1919, I dare say he was, for the most part, a 19th century senior military officer Zordrac
  • Delete Unless someone adds what he did, he is not notable.--Ewok Slayer --(User | Talk | Contribs) 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as nothing in google, and nothing in article either. Zordrac 08:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Keep for now as enough evidence from others that it is a good faith article that may have merit. I may change my vote back to delete pending the results of a discussion. Needs to be expanded. Zordrac 18:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. FWIW, I note that User 62.101.207.27 has many contributions, mostly various Arbuthnots, apparently copied from the Arbuthnot family archives. Possible copyvio? Perhaps this all should be a list? Anyway, the other Arbuthnots seem genuinely notable. Herostratus 09:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I know, I'm lazy, but can you link straight to his contribs for me? I am tempted to change my vote to keep based on your argument. Zordrac 10:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Done, down there vvvv - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: One of the things WP:NOT is genealogy, and the contributor is, essentially, filling out the family tree. It's true that this one, if written by another hand, from scratch, could pass muster, but that's written from scratch, which is to say that none of this content would remain, which is to say delete. Note that none of these Arbuthnots is related to John Arbuthnot, who is, until the late 19th century, the only really famous one. Geogre 12:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The funny thing is that your argument almost convinced me to change my vote towards keep, yet you voted delete! :) I am going to change my vote to keep, just to make sure that there's no consensus and this can be debated properly. Zordrac 18:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two Google hits on "Henry Thomas Arbuthnot", from the same site listing the Arbuthnot family tree. And I have seen nothing in this discussion to establish any notability, let alone enough to warrant a WP article. - Dalbury(Talk) 21:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the following Arbuthnots are included in the ODNB:
...although it may perhaps be added that Wikipedia is likely to be much more inclusive in other fields, such as cricket players (to take an example with relevance for British biography) than the ODNB would ever be, so why not army generals? I don't feel like voting on this particlular article, though. (Just one suggestion: maybe, if he is a son or younger brother of somebody more famous, include a brief note on him in that article?) -- u p p l a n d 09:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge although what Uppland says has some merit, the problem here is that there were lots of senior army oficers in those days, the majority of whom barely get a mention in their regimental history. If this guy led any notable campaigns then I'd vote keep without hesitation, but since the author hasn't taken the trouble to add any background, and the majority of sources will be treeware for someone from this era, it's hard to see this as anything other than free mirroring for [2]. Perhaps the best thing is to merge all the Arbuthnots (of whom this anon author has added several) into one proper article on the Arbuthnot family? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoever it is is obviously a student of some aspects of history, having corrected entries on Eton College and corrected categorisation on a few other entries. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. User:62.101.207.27 Expanding it is the intention. There is no copyright breach here as the author is webmaster kittybrewster.com responsible for original entries.

LOL! And you think we hadn't guessed that? Anyway, at present there are many stubs: I would suggest merging the Kittybrewsters to one article and the Edinburghs to another until such time as they become unwieldy. I think it would give a better idea of the history and continuity of the families, as well as beign easier for me, the reader, to follow. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:52, 1 December 2005 (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.