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 with the added references. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles George James Arbuthnot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another NN military person from the walled garden. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, another copyright violation, this time of [1]. KJS77 02:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No - see above nomination. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC) that is a mirror of wikipedia.[reply]

• Yes, that's exactly what I was pointing out. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable as an MP, an equerry and by virtue of the number of men under his command. Nevertheless could use expansion. There is no walled garden. - Kittybrewster (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge and Delete. Sorry, this goes too far. "General" of a regiment, now a battalian of the Seaforth Highlanders, is not notability. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another random army officer. Mangoe 04:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a "random" army officer would, in terms of numbers, be much more likely to be a lieutenant than a general.DGG 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, almost making it into government isn't the same as actually doing so. Military career unremarkable. --Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: "Military career unremarkable"? Are you serious? David Lauder 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Allthough it does not mention it this man was one of the first people to quarry Iron ore on his Northamptonshire Estate. That may or may not make him very notable, allthough I did fleetingly mention this when editing Woodford, Northamptonshire a few days ago. I just wonder if the Woodford page would be the proper place to mention these all military officers who lived there rather than giving them pages of their own. Mentioning particularly the effects, as presumably squires they had on that village, quarries etc. However, I do mean a few words not swamping the page with their second cousins and their neighbours. In the meantime, I strongly suggest Kittybrewster takes most of his pages into user space, to protect his work. Then perhaps the main space could be deleted - to protect Wikipedia's reputation and standards - and allow Kittybrewster and a team of volunteers (any offers?) to bring the possibly notable up to standard without risk of being nominated here. To me, this seems a fair solution to what is becoming large wikipedia problem. Giano 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: It is not a "large Wikipedia problem". You seem intent on making it so. David Lauder 21:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless something is added to explain why this "general" [sic] of the 72nd Duke of Albany's own Highlanders is notable. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a clear keep, following recent additions. Well done everyone. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Presently lacks multiple reliable and independent references, since Mrs Arbuthnot's "Memories of the Arbuthnots" clearly does not qualify. Perhaps additional independent and reliable references could be found . Edison 13:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete unless there is something in Smith's book. I do not feel the usual confidence that there is, because the article used as independent source in the John_Alves_Arbuthnot article did not contain a single word about him. There were other more notable Arbuthnot generals--see my comment in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Alves_Arbuthnot Once again, nothing in DNB or GS.
• Suggestion Why not do what do do in other cases of borderline notability: merge into articles for the principal figures of the same generation--which is what the DNB often does, or write the article for a group of brothers, with redirects, as we do for middle schools? DGG 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non notable. Montco 15:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. General of a regiment, and held positions in the courts of both King George III and Queen Victoria. The article has been updated to reflect this. John Vandenberg 04:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Update: I've found a source for the Equerry position that gels pretty well with the bio, but it only refers to him as "Colonel Arbuthnot". [2] John Vandenberg 05:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- notable army officer and equerry Astrotrain 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable for a number of reasons. Could do with expansion, but I didn't think we were in the business of deleting stubs. Leithp 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I've filled out the article a bit more, and it turns out he was, in fact, Member of Parliament for the charming little rotten borough of Tregony for about a year, hence notable by our criteria as a member of a national legislature. The article's still not great, but getting there. Choess 03:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Speedy?" Oh, well, someone is bound to say that, I suppose. The "filled out" article goes into agonizing detail about a military life and never once explains why this person is encyclopedic. Why is a general reader hearing of this person and wanting information? Why is someone outside of the estates seeing the name and needing knowledge? How does this "filled out" version answer any fundamental questions (other than, "gee, what is the chronology of this person's life")? Persons like this often affect the world in some way, but I have no evidence that this particular person did. Geogre 12:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well. I said "speedy" because I discovered that the subject of the article was, briefly, a Member of Parliament, and even stubby articles on MPs have generally been kept as fulfilling WP:BIO (politicians belonging to a national legislature). I freely admit that this is a defense rather more in the letter than the spirit of the guideline; although I'm happy to discuss the spirit in a forum more suited to it. Choess 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find most of those stubby MP articles to be rather subsaline, as well. However, my problem with the article as it is now is that we have a list of labels, of awards, of ... names of things ... but no description of the things he did. We need flesh to hang on these skeletal prominences. It's rather like a title rather than a biography. I appreciate that there is a potential biography, but what I found most noxious about the biographies kittybrewster had written, or ones like it, rather, is that they were treating awards as accomplishments and favoring the all important Valuable Award over the actions that changed the world. This is in addition to the fact that they never gave us biographies at all, but merely chronologies. Geogre 19:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see where Geogre is coming from, at present this is just a ghastly cringe making page full of award and titles and honours written by a relative, and in one instance referenced by a relative (I wish my family were so adoring) the remaining refs confirm his existence - so does a tombstone. I'm sure some of these honours were deserved - but can we all be let into the secret Giano 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after the expansion and improvement. JavaTenor 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I join with Choess in agreeing that all Members of Parliament should be kept. I'd even consider a rule that we should keep all generals, because such a high rank indicates it might be possible to find sources for future expansion of the article. Delete. OK, I see the point. He was an MP, but from a rotten borough (perhaps one of those abolished by the Reform Bill of 1832), so he didn't win a free and fair election from a real district. He was in parliament a very short time. He was a peacetime general, and did not see any action (as an adult) except in the 'Plug-Drawing Riots'. So I'll go with 'delete', not seeing any sources that testify to important deeds.

The stories told about Charles George James Arbuthnot in Mrs. A's "Memories" are mostly human-interest anecdotes. It's clear from her account that *his* father, Charles Arbuthnot, was a more important man. EdJohnston 20:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually, I'd be wary of declaring general officers and flag officers to be generally notable. Many promotions to these ranks occurred on the basis of seniority long after the officer had gone off active duty and exercised no real prerogatives of generalship. Choess 21:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I just don't believe these wanton AfDs. Here is a person who was a Member of Parliament, an extremely notable military individual, etc. Of course we should keep such a good potted biography on Wikipedia (regardless of surname - in answer to the nominator).David Lauder 21:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, get a grip of yourself - the only thing that makes this person notable is his two minute (shared) stint in the Houses of Parliment. It was not known that this person was an MP before the AfD (even if some editors above have altered their comments to make out that it was!)--Vintagekits 21:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, Wanton AfD? Did you see this article before the AfD started?? WP:CIVIL. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm amused by "potted biography." That is, indeed, the problem -- potted meats. Also, I should point out that promotions in the officer corps prior to 1900, at least, if not prior to 1950, could take place strictly due to money and family connections. In the 18th century, officer ranks were explicitly purchased. Therefore, I would say that, at most, these point toward something, but they are not themselves anything at all. Geogre 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could say a little more than that, I'd say indicated but not conclusively proves. Whether they got there by longevity, money, or family, they were in positions of responsibility. They at least had the public role of the member of a US state legislature--and such are considered automatically notable. (Similar things are probably true of a great many business executives and others in what to most of us are not particularly interesting professions). The harm to WP is not these articles being here, but the standards to which they were done. And the harm from the Louisana State Assemblymen is not that they're here, but the absurd amount of length and detail. Good concise sourced articles are needed, as well as notable subjects. Therefore, Keep'DGG' 05:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of which argues for a speedy improve tag or something similar rather than afd.. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No, because without huge amounts of in-depth research it's impossible to tell which of these articles are notable and which ones aren't, whereas AfD kicks people into actually proving notability rather than leaving the article alone. This is proved by this particular AfD, where the subject's main (only?) claim to notability, being an MP, wasn't even mentioned in the article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable as a former MP of the UK.--padraig3uk 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an MP, but did you see in the above discussion that he was elected from a rotten borough and only served for a year? Lack of a real district means that the post was awarded as a 'plum', possibly with the help of his father who was an MP of near-cabinet rank. EdJohnston 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I did see that and I would agree that it was a plum position, but that point should be refered to in the article and is not a reason for deletion in itself.--padraig3uk 10:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plum position or not, former MPs are still notable. CJCurrie 02:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If being a MP makes one notable, being from a rotten borough is even more so ... only in a less-savory sort of way. Kudos to Choess for the expansion and Kittybrewster for the references! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Therefore passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Greenshed 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.