Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence John Arbuthnot (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Sr13 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terence John Arbuthnot (2nd nomination)

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

Second nomination — the first is here, and was closed somewhat dubiously - aside from Kittybrewster's keep, there was one "keep" with no explanation, one "weak keep" again with no explanation, and three "deletes".

This is, I believe, the first time I've entered the murky world of an Arbuthnot nomination (Kittybrewster, before you start attacking me you might want to remember that I generally !vote keep on them) but I really can't see anything salvageable about this one. It's virtually unsourced (not even Memories of the Arbuthnots in this case; the only information is from the thepeerage.com website, which comes from the creator of the article). The only assertion of notability is the two military awards (the award from the Venerable Order of Saint John is meaningless). However, the Croix de guerre is a lot less notable than it sounds, being apparently awarded to every airman following their first air-to-air victory. The Order of Léopold is a bona fide "Highest military decoration", and if he won it would warrant a keep. However there's nothing to indicate that he did win it or what he won it for; it was added to the article by Phoe in December, but the sole source for this is thepeerage.com, which as discussed ad nauseam in recent days cannot be taken as a reliable source. I would expect the winner of the Belgian equivalent of the Victoria Cross/Medal of Honour to be listed in numerous places (especially someone who won it as a foreign national) but nothing, not even Dutch/French Wikipedia. A source for the decoration given on the talk page is about him, but does not mention the award at all.

In terms of WP:BIO he fails utterly (only 3 Ghits excluding Wikipedia mirrors and the three Arbuthnot sites, all three of which are trivial sources which appear to be mirroring this article; not a single hit on an RAF or military history site, even as part of a laundry list of pilots).

Obviously, if anyone can find a reliable source for his having won the award, consider this nomination withdrawn. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep: clearly a notable airman who participated in importanty early campaigns for the RAF and who received seriously high military honours. I have added two important reference books, one with an ISBN for those who wish to consult. David Lauder 21:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a group captain isn't notable. If some independent record of the awards and some documentation of what they were for were forthcoming, we might have a case to retain it. But in the absence of that, not at all notable. If this guy is genuinely some sort of war hero, then sourcing it from more reliable sources should not prove too hard. -Docg 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As per this conversation, apparently the reference for the Order of Leopold is Burke's, which is a reliable source. Is anyone in a position to check and confirm this — if so & it checks out, I withdraw this nom — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very thin sourcing. Burke's is a start. Would reconsider if more sources are added before the close of the AfD. Since he lived until 1995, he might have been written up in some newspaper stories. At a minimum, someone should be able to find his obituary. EdJohnston 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The Daily Telegraph would certainly have given him an obit since (if genuine) he ticks every one of their boxes. No hits on a search of their website for "Terence Arbuthnot", "T Arbuthnot" or "T J Arbuthnot" but I don't know how far back they archive — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Elrith 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I may have tracked down, or begun to track down, a reliable reference for the award of the Order of Leopold. See here: "ARBUTHNOT, Terence John, G/C - Order of Leopold (Officer) with Palm and Croix de Guerre (1940) with Palm (Belgian) - awarded as per London Gazette dated 27 June 1947." - now it is just a question of searching the London Gazette. Carcharoth 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. This is an encyclopedia not a private family web-site. Giano 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Highly decorated by the allied governments, nominated for deletion by the users of wikipedia. That says it all. --Counter-revolutionary 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - a recipient of the highest military honour in Belgium is notable (it would be nice to have more information about what he actually did of course). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Change to delete in the light of the new evidence. I was under the impression that his Belgian medal was a Victoria Cross analogue - in which case he would clearly have done something especially notable, whether the article mentioned it or not. In the absence of that, his article discloses nothing of particular note that justifies an article on him. Perhaps he did something interesting in India or Europe, but we just can't tell from the article as it stands. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, as we don't actually 'know what he did'. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've found official proof that he won the Order of Leopold here (near the top of the first column). As confers automatic WP:N as a "highest military decoration", changing to keep in this case; I can't withdraw the nom now there are delete !votes. This doesn't change the basic problem that the article says nothing about why he won it and I'd urge Kittybrewster and friends to improve the existing Arbuthnots rather than creating new ones — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It seems like rather a lot of people got this award for "services rendered during the liberation of Belgium". I don't think all those people should have articles. If anything, a section in the Order of Leopold article mentioning the "World War II" awards of the Order of Leopold might be better. Carcharoth 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • If we knew anything about why he was given this medal then it should be considered that it contributes to notability - its certainly doesnt give automatic notability especially as there is no detail.--Vintagekits 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe he is a coat-hanger to wrap other notable facts around? Aatomic1 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) PS Kitty, I think the emphasis is on you to explain the Mohmand Operations
  • Delete If you look at the dates, this article appears to be an amalgam of information about two individuals. While the peerage info seems reliable, it doesn't make him seem terribly notable on its own, and the newspaper must refer to another individual as it was published before his birth. Sci girl 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless proved to be truthful; and delete again as non-notable. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
  • Delete the article per Sockpuppet (did I really say that?) but with thanks for the link to the St John mumbo jumbo article, where we can view a charming fancy-dress partygoer. -- Hoary 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested to know how he came to serve in the East India Company which was disolved some 48 years before he was born. Giano 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
So would I...It doesn't seem to say that in the article, though I may be wrong.--Counter-revolutionary 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Arbuthnot ended his career in the HEIC as a Colonel" I assume that is not the local building society in his nearst High Street! Giano 08:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've just noticed that. Hmmm... --Counter-revolutionary 08:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Aatomic has been adding nonsense. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ...er, I think you will find that it was not me. I have done the research for you. [1] Aatomic1 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)...er maybe I did ...sorry Aatomic1 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • So it the passage true or not? Additonally - Kitty there is no need to refer to Astomic as a "muppet" either.--Vintagekits 10:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not true. The above user added it by mistake, I presume. --Counter-revolutionary 10:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you answering if you dont know, I would prefer a concrete answer rather thana presumption - please allow Aatomic1 to answer the question and to explain how and why that section was added. regards--Vintagekits 10:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I do know; unless he had a time machine it was impossible. --Counter-revolutionary 10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that instead of hitting return; I hit paste; My memory is not serving me well but I believe that particular snippet came from User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel's research on a different Arbuthnot Afd Aatomic1 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes that was George Bingham Arbuthnot not this one... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to wonder what exactly is going on with these Arbuthnot pages. For the record it would also be helpful if everyone editing pages, including Kittybrewster and Aatomic1 left edit summaries [2] Giano 12:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment in case the above references to the East India Company and pre-birth newspaper references confused anyone, it was due to this edit, which was later reverted (it is a different Arbuthnot). Carcharoth 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, Belgian military honours notwithstanding. As I see it that can be used as a criterion for establishing notability, but does not automatically confer notability per se. Eusebeus 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've just written an article on his second wife Evie Greene - but my opinion of this article stands.--Docg 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
His wife was never Evie Green. --Counter-revolutionary 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps he met her over the counter in the local Building Society? Giano 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You have your Arbuthnots confused. They were not married. --Counter-revolutionary 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too many inexplicable inconsistencies, no valid google hits. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If we include all Colonels in the Army or Captains in the Navy who got a medal in WWII we are going to have a lot of articles about not particularly notable people (what did he do between 1945 and 1995 BTW?) Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that many of the other senior officers in the airforce who were awarded the Croix de Guerre + Order of Leopold medal (given to most people involved in the liberation of Belgium) have British C.B.E.s or O.B.E.s but not this person. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to strong delete. The plot thickens... Turns out that, while the "Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold" is, indeed, a bona fide "Highest Military Decoration", there's also a "Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold" which is Belgium's 39th highest military decoration. there's also an "Officer of the Order of Leopold" which is Belgium's 16th highest military decoration. Whilst Kittybrewster hasn't specified which version of the medal he won, in light of the general lack of any mention of him anywhere, I know which my money would be on. Changing back to strong delete unless someone can provide any evidence that he did win the higher version — and, since Kittybrewster presumably does know which version he actually won and has chosen not to mention the fact, if he does turn out to have won the lower version my willingness to accept the legitimacy of any other Arbuthnot claims has dropped like a stone — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You are confusing me now! :-) You are claiming that the "Grand Cordon" is a "highest military decoration", but the Wikipedia article on the Order of Leopold says: "The Grand Cordon title is reserved to national and foreign royals", which doesn't sound like an inclusive "highest" honour to me. I'd also presume that the article's lack of mention of which level of the order is not a deliberate omission, but just a lack of information. If anything, this is a lesson to not jump to conclusions next time and assume that "Order of X" = highest level of that order. Maybe someone round here should go and tidy up the Order of Leopold article so things are clearer on that front? Carcharoth 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, you've also confused 'Order of Leopold' and 'Order of Leopold II' (two different awards). On the list you linked to, there is a 'Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold II', but no equivalent for the Order of Leopold. Go back to the gazette link you gave above, and that makes clear that he was made an Officer of the Order of Leopold, which is the fourth of five classes within that order. Doing all this research is great, but it is misleading to start making mistakes like that, and confusing two different orders. The London Gazette is a reliable source, so why did you cross that out? It won't make much difference, and I don't particularly want the article kept, but swinging back and forth like you've done only muddies the waters. Can you make clear your final stance on this, following what I've said here? At the least, you might want to retract your "the plot thickens" comment. Carcharoth 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment To clarify, he was awarded the Order of Leopold with Palme and Croix de Guerre 1940 with Palme, officer class (the fourth out of five classes). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment In which case, it is definitely not a genuine "highest military decoration", so he doesn't get the exemption from normal WP:N rules which that would give him under WP:MILITARY#Notability. The article, either through innocent mistake or deliberate omission (I'm certainly willing to assume the former) gives a misleading impression that he won the higher version. For the benefit of Carcharoth, sticking with strong delete now; that "London Gazette" entry now counts against his inclusion, while Kittybrewster's attempt to change other users' comments in this AfD[3] appear at the least unconstructive — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Iridescenti, you missed my point. I was pointing out that you have confused the Order of Leopold and the Order of Leopold II (see Leopold I and Leopold II)- the "Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold" that you got all excited about doesn't exist (you were, in fact, referring to the Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold II). I was hoping you would strike out your comments about that, as they are just confusing and misleading for others reading this discussion. Carcharoth 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Done. Since all this means is that he won the 16th highest decoration instead of the 39th, I don't see how it detracts from the point — WP:MILITARY#Notability is very clear that only winners of the highest award are exempted from normal WP:BIO rules, and this still clearly isn't — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I agree. I've !voted below. Carcharoth 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me a thoroughly poisoned afd. Please note from the history that the person who inserted the Order of Leopold was not me but Phoe. Presumably she got it from the London Gazette It is confirmed in Burke's Peerage. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08
41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete abject failure of WP:N. This is what a notable airman looks like. There do not appear to be any non-trivial sources independent of the Arbuthnot family for the article under discussion, and it is about bloody time that Kittybrewster discovered GenesReunited instead of trying to put his family tree on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Mr Politenessman wishes to point out that we should avoid use of the "B" word: it scares the horses. Instead, we may choose among "about sanguinary time", "about corpuscular time", and others. Thank you. -- Hoary 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Guy. Dodgy awards or not, that doesn't matter: there's just no evidence he passes WP:N. Moreschi Talk 10:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Guy. failure of WP:N. --Fredrick day 11:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - received multiple military decorations, including the Order of Léopold, which is described in its article as the highest order in Belgium. This means the subject is notable per the guidelines set out at WP:MILHIST. JulesH 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • MILHIST guidelines don't really matter. WikiProject guidelines do not trump WP:N. Moreschi Talk 11:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Then why have them? WP:N is only a guideline, and I'd suggest that in this case we're looking at a subject-specific exception that has consensus among those who work on the subject. A clear case of WP:IAR. JulesH 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the article clarifies that he has done something exceptional or notable. The mere fact that he was awarded several orders and medals do not constitute notability. It's not because he was made an officer in the Order of Leopold that he merits mentioning. Literally hundreds of those are awarded and most are awarded as a long service award. More so as officer is the second lowest class of the order (Grand Cordon - Grand officer - Commander - Officer - Knight) . -- fdewaele, 25 May 2007, 13:55.
  • Delete per Guy. Userify if there is anything of value to keep but I suspect that a bare recitation like this one doesn't have much to salvage. Unless this airman is much more notable than the article indicates and unless more varied and more reliable sources are introduced, this article utterly fails WP:N. Apparently there are a fair number of other Arbuthnot articles that need more close examination as well. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Could I just point out Lar before there is a huge rush to nominate pages, following the publicity on (WP ANI) those that seem non notable and obvious candidates for deletion cannot be nominated for non-notability if they are Peers, Baronets, Members of Parliament or (it now seems) Bishops, many have been deleted over the last couple of weeks those remaining probably need close examination rather than immediately nominating for deletion. This is not going to be quickly solved problem Giano 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, most definitely. I'm sugggesting close examination, not willy nilly nomination for deletion. If a bunch of articles are nommed for deletion that oughtn't to be, that just makes more work for everyone. Note that an article about a notable person can be deleted (or superstubbed out to just the name and clearly verifiable facts, which may be a better approach than nomming) if it doesn't contain any verifiable information. Thanks for the reminder, though, it's good to keep in mind. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You are not quite correct there, I'll take this to your talk as this is not really the place Giano 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Resolute 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V, per Guy and Lar. Sarah 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per various discussions above. Carcharoth 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with hot-ass fire. Utterly fails just about every person-related criteria for notability I can think of. Wheres the news articles about him, discussing him in a critical fashion, not lists of award winners and lists of people related to someone? -Mask? 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This person is simply not notable. Acalamari 17:15, 25 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.