Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Arbuthnot (cavalry officer)

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 Ryan Postlethwaite 11:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Arbuthnot (cavalry officer)

William Arbuthnot (cavalry officer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This biography says he was a Major General. I see nothing further that tells me why he was a Major General or for what it was he was notable. I hope someone can come up with some further information and save this particular Arbuthnot - if not delete it. Vintagekits 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not a notable person per Wikipedia criteria. Elrith 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• This is the very model of an article delete-able. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (To elaborate, this is a genealogy. We may be a resource for genealogy, but we are not a genealogy listing service.) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, only real claims to notability are being the assistant to someone notable and marrying acceptably well. --Dhartung | Talk 07:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Surely, a general is considered notable? In any case, even if this particular page should go, he deserves a mention in various other articles around about, including notable people he is affiliated with, and the regiments he was in charge of. J Milburn 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, Hi Milburn, there are a few issues with regards that comment, 1. This person is not a General he was a Major-General (seems like it should be a higher rank than General but its not its a lower rank). 2. A General of the whole army would be notable, a general of an off shoot of section such as the East India Company may not be. 3. We have no idea when or why he became a major general or what campaigns he lead men into - this is a serious black mark. 4. A lot of the military notability is based on the number of men they commanded - we have no idea of this in the article.--Vintagekits 11:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've found in the London Gazette (see below) it seems he was on the full British Army List, rather than on the Indian establishment (East India Company went following the Mutiny). David Underdown 10:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work David - I wish others that add information were as thorough as yourself. Anyway he still was only a Major General and not a General - unless you find out different as I am beginning to worry about the reliability and accuracy of all the information now.--Vintagekits 10:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable biography. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment He was apparently awarded a CB, it may be possible to find more infomration on that via the London Gazette (searching the archives is not the most user-friendly process). Some stuff seems flat out wrong Major general of the 14th Hussars makes no sense, he may have been a major General and Colonel of the Regiment however - but that's a largely honorary title. David Underdown 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Having done an archive search, it appears with reasonable probability that he acted as Deputy-Adjutant General of the Suakin Field Force under General Graham (possible Gerald Graham) part of the Nile Expedition under Sir Garnet Wolseley to relieve Gordon at Khartoum. Arbuthnot was several times Mentioned in Despatches on this expedition, and it appears to be these services for which he was gazetted Companion of the Bath. I'll place links to the gazette etc on the article talk. David Underdown 10:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Having a military rank per se does not prove notability. Re-create if someone finds substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources to satisfy WP:N. Edison 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment a general officer in a major world power's military is usually notable; however, (a) no independent RS shows that he held such a position, and (b) whether the position was more than purely honorary as were often conferred for non-military services rendered to the crown. Carlossuarez46 00:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable as a general in the 14th Hussars; the HEIC comment is irrelevant. Thanks to User:David_Underdown for his good work. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be too good on military stuff, he commanded the 14th Hussars as a Lieutenant-Colonel (having done the majority of his regimental service in that regiment, although it appears he may actually have begun his career in the Rifles, somewhat unusual in itself to transfer from Infantry to Cavalry), and appears to have later been promoted to Major General, though I haven't come across the gazetting of that promotion. He may then have also been Colonel of the Regiment - again I haven't found that to be gazetted, he cannot have bee a general in the 14th Hussars because General officers are not in any regiment (you may see them recorded as being General Such-and-such "late of the Whatever Regiment"). Nor have I yet actually found the gazette entry for his promotion to Major General, although the promotion of someone else to succeed a Major General William Arbuthnot in Natal, with effective date 13/09/1893 would fit with a death on 12/09/1893. If you want to improve the quality of these articles, I suggest you start doing some searches of the gazettes and other resources yourself, rather than relying on a rather dated family history. You should be able to find service records in The National Archives - nothing I found in the gazettes mentioned him being Assistant-Adjuntant General (and I suspect that would be based at Horse Guards, rather than being "of" Horse Guards), nor being an ADC on the Abyssinian expedition- I even checked my copy of Flashman on the March last night to see if he was mentioned in any of the historical notes for that, but nothing was there. He seems to have been a reasonably good, but not outstanding officer, family connections probably helped him, and several promotions were by Purchase, although he did receive some brevets, so he had some merit too. David Underdown 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone adds something demonstrating (in an independently sourced and verifiable manner) that he has done something notable. Being the very model of a Victorian Major General, and a Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath to boot, is not of itself notable.-- ALoan (Talk) 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Getting better, but still not there, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. As the article stands there is a distinct lack of evidence that this particular military man had a career that either A) confirms notability by default or B) contained anything out of the ordinary to gain notability. Nuttah68 16:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, ALoan. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep he is clearer of sufficient note, even if his biography is still at the stub level. Folks should focus on deleting minor "celebrities" and self-promoting nobodies, rather than dead people who just need more work being done on their articles. Edwardx 18:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. I endorse David Underdown's comments above 100% regarding too much reliance out dated sources Giano 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• not every calvaryman and adjutant is notable. Not every recepient of the CB is notable. Per the nom, delete ++Lar: t/c 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Here is some info from the London Gazette:
• edition 19th December, 1882: Staff, Colonel William Arbuthnot, half-pay, to be a Brigadier-General on the staff whilst commanding the Cavalry Brigade in Egypt, and not a Colonel on the Staff, as stated in the Gazette of 17th November, 1882. Dated 21st October, 1882.
• edition 18th December, 1883: Staff, Lieutenant-Colonel and Colonel William Arbuthnot, half-pay, from Brigadier-General on the Staff in Egypt, to be a Deputy-Adjutant and Quartermaster-General, vice Colonel R.T. Thynne, Grenadier Guards, who has vacated that appointment. Dated 25th December, 1883. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Some more:14th Hussars, Lieutenant-Colonel and Brevet Colonel William Arbuthnot, having completed five years' service as a Regimental Lieutenant-Colonel, has been placed on half-pay. Dated 15th June, 1881 (28th June, 1881 Gazette).
• Colonel William Arbuthnot, Lieutenant-Colonel, half-pay, to be Deputy Adjutant and Quartermaster-General, Malta, vice Colonel C.A.B. Gordon, half-pay, who is about to vacate that appointment. Dated 1st April, 1882 (21st February, 1882 Gazette). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean he was a Brigadier-General? - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest it baffles me slightly- It appears that somehow Briagadier-General was being used as an occupational position equivalent to DAG and QMG from the wording. I was hoping David Underdown would comment as he seems to be knowledgable on military matters. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per various arguments presented that notability isn't met; being a high ranking officer alone isn't enough. ThuranX 15:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete utterly fails to meet notability guidelines and lacks multiple, non-trivial sources. Lists of things are trivial sources. -M^ask? 16:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Good, interesting encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 17:55, 27 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.