Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bingham Arbuthnot

Add links
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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Bingham Arbuthnot[edit]

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

This biography says he was a General. I see nothing further that tells me why he was a 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. Giano 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It now appears he was not in fact a General. Giano 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional delete unless someone — preferably not Kittybrewster — can find sources for this. The only Ghits are on Wiki mirrors or Sir William's own site (or the entry on the Peerage site sourced from him), and while I'm not a rabid Arbuthnot-deleter an article can't rely solely on "Memories of...". He's not mentioned in Lawrence James's Raj, which while incomplete does mention pretty much every significant British military figure in India in this period — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 21:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On reading the notability guidelines for military biographies — which I confess I didn't know existed until five minutes ago — he clearly fails unless there's more to add, as there's no mention of commanding a large body of troops in combat — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't know about the notability guidelines for military biographies either. He doesn't appear to satisfy those. Would welcome more sources, in which case I might change my vote. EdJohnston 22:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You probably didn't know about them because they are the guidelines of a wikiproject, not WP guidelines. That isn't to say they aren't perfectly good ones, but they shouldn't be given as much weight as WP guidelines, and certainly not as much as policy. Charlie 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Granted, but seems that the relevant WikiProject is best placed to judge what constitutes notability in their specialist area. If the people who care most about the subject are saying they won't care about an article, that's a pretty convincing argument to me even if it's not a policy — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Understood. I mean no offense, and it seems to me that your argument here is valid. Charlie 00:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. No evidence his military service was notable in any way. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and also fails WP:N (neither of the two sources is independent). A WP:MILITARY#Biographies puts it, "Any person that that is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable". Apart from its failure to meet the guidelines, I can find no other grounds to keep this article; it is barely long enough to count as stub-class, it has no independent references, and there is not even the smallest clue to suggest the man did anything notable. He appears to have been an simply an obscure functionary in the British Raj, whose biography has been created and maintained by two editors ([1] [2]) who are fixated on Arbuthnots. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not notable United and Free 14:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might possibly be notable but there's no way to tell from the article. There are no real references to whatever he may have done, because of Kb's inadequate research. Had he researched each one of the Arbuthnots with care, we would know, for example, just what he was general of and what the soldiers under his command did. But in the attempt to get all of the family in WP, it apparently wasn't feasible to do the work to tell us anything much about this. I'm certainly willing to work on an occasional article somewhat within my field of interest when the author didn't know how to do an adequate job, but I am not willing to devote the rest of the year to this particular family. If Kb took his project seriously, he would have written the articles in a much more careful way. Though there would not have been as many of them written, there would have been more documented well enough to keep. DGG 03:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as a General, SqueakBox 15:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Squeakbox. And the number of men under his command. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above edit by Kittybrewster may fall into the category of WP:COI. Giano 21:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except you have not bothered to tell us how many men were under his command, for all we know he could have finished his career in the Salvation Army banging a tambourine. Giano 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a General not a Corporal, SqueakBox 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Generals are inherently notable. Note searching his full name won't necessarily turn up relevant hits as he may just be referenced as General (or a lower rank he held) Arbuthnot. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it would be nice but as it is only Kittybrewster's granny (or whoever she is) seems to be aware of him. Giano 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to disseminate useful knowledge, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed we are but "Granny Arbuthnot" fails to cite her sources and as she is the only person who claims any knowledge of this person apart from Kittybrewster's own tree which is of course based on granny's book it is all a little dodgy! Giano 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I change my vote to Delete as the 3rd Madras Cavalry was not in the British Army but part of the Honourable East India Company. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt make him less notable, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think inherently it does and I have looked high and low for any reference to anything he has done I can find nothing at all. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to [3] he was a Lt. Col. in the 8th Madras Light Cavalry in 1857. Do we actually have any independent source that describes him as a General- I can't even find a mention in the Times for him? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So am I right in thinking a Major-General is two ranks below a fully fledged General? Giano 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and he was a Major-General in the East India Company Service not the British Army. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Today, army officers generally retire a rank higher than when serving, was that the case at that time too? Giano 19:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it did happen yes.. I've found another reference to him in The Times dated May 16, 1859 where he was still described as a Lt. Col., 8th Madras Light Cavalry on the marriage of his youngest dau. Fanny to E.A. Loraine Grews Esq. (he died 8 years later). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More Arbuthnot lies! I seems that only when others delve into that facts of these articles do we get the truth. Thank god for editors like Giano who are actually putting the time in to get to the truth and not just accepting the misinformation that is coming from the Arbuthnot family themselves - sickening and embarassing to be honest. I know one journalist that is know writing a piece for a large newspaper in Ireland about the Arbuthnot self promotion crusade.--Vintagekits 22:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure these pages are all deliberate lies - more a case of typical family legend and myth that has got out of hand. What family has not exaggerated a long dead ordinary-serving-soldier-great-grandfather to the ranks of war hero or a long lost family farm to an estate these things happen - what does not happen is for these myths to be published in encyclopedias as fact. So this has all got to stop, and the sooner the better. Giano 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually thought he might have been promoted due to some heroic action in defence of the Company's interests during the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58 but this doesn't seem to have been the case as he was still Lt. Col. after that. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I have now found an entry from the London Gazette that states that George Bingham Arbuthnot was appointed Colonel on July 4, 1858- this issue was dated March 4, 1864, three years before his death so he must have been promoted to Major General during those years. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another Update OK, solved it! In the 25 March, 1862 edition it states that
"The undermentioned officers of Her Majesty's Indian Military Forces, retired upon full pay, to have a step of honorary rank" - Colonel George Bingham Arbuthnot appears under the Major-General heading dated 31 December, 1861. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication of how the subject is notable and a total lack of reliable sources. Nuttah68 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This guy is a Major-General, not a general in the popular sense of commanding an army. Holding this non-notable rank alone is not enough for notability. I see no evidence of notability in the biography. No entry for him in ODNB, which usually stretches notability for this time period. This is a clear delete, unless anyone gives me further evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note he finished his army career as a Colonel, the Major-General was an honorary rank awarded in retirement. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't notice that! I guess that only decreases his already low notability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone unearths something interesting that he did. Becoming colonel of a regiment in British India, and then retiring as an honorary Major General, is not terribly notable. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is not sufficiently asserted. --Ashenai 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply not notable. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 14:37, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Bingham_Arbuthnot&oldid=1137875087"