Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Arbuthnot

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Arbuthnot

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

This person though of interest to his family is not at all notable. May be he did have great achievements but they are certainly not mentioned here and I can not find them listed elsewhere. The only reference seems to have been written by a family member almost 90 years ago, they too were obviously unaware of anything making their kinsman notable. I think this particular Arbuthnot has to be deleted. Giano 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: WP not Genealogy is one of our older principles, and the only thing the article gives us is that this is a soldier. Well, there are quite a few of them, and many even have descendants who play with Wikipedia. Family does not bronze a life. Geogre 09:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable here. Dr Gangrene 09:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability and Wikipedia is not a genealogical site. Hut 8.5 11:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment- If more information is provided on why he has a stained glass window dedicated to him (designed by a notable designer), then this could give editors more indication of notability. Thunderwing 12:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Simply his relations had the money to pay for it. At that time (and I suspect now) anyone can pay for a memorial window in a church so long as the design and designer are approved by the board of Church Architects - who have a list of approved (usually proven and notable)designers and craftemen. Giano 12:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer- I just wanted a double check incase there was something not apparent from the article. Given the lack of evidence I would say Delete as it fails WP:BIO Thunderwing 19:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - being an Arbuthnot is not a free pass to notability, and this one appears not to pass Wikipedia:Notability. No assertion of encyclopedic relevance. Per Giano. Moreschi ^Talk 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Or we would open a door to entries for any soldier who reached the rank of Major or above in the British Army. I suppose a list of Soldiers who took part in the Battle of Omdurman could work, but do we really want any more lists? Duke of Whitstable 15:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO.Montco 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything verifiable to Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet who was his son and certainly worth HIS article. A line can be included in that article regarding the father, who is not worth an article.--Doc^g 16:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A privately printed family genealogy fails WP:A. Lacks evidence of encyclopedic 'arbuthnotabiliity'. Edison 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not confuse verifiability with notability. Actually, most of the information is verified by the commonwealth war graves citation given in the article. So WP:A is met. I say again, why not merge the verifiable information? --Doc^g 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Doc, that would require effort and work on some one's part. This has been suggested to the primary author on countless occasions, he does not agree. Giano 19:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unremarkable KIA. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Oh, for heavens sake. It is interesting that he was at the Battle of Omdurman, but he was apparently a captain at the time - one of many, no doubt, in a force of 8,000 British regulars. Just being an army officer, or being the father of someone who was created a baronet, is not notable. And he died a major at Ypres. Again, one of many. Did he actually do anything of note? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• No vote If this were a vote I mean, because it's not, even though it kind of is... --Infrangible 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into the article on his son Sir John Arbuthnot, 1st Baronet, per User:Doc glasgow. Not notable enough on his own. EdJohnston 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Slavlin 21:47, 16 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.