Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Arbuthnot (auditor)

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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arbuthnot (auditor)

User:Kittybrewster is a fine fellow and a Knight of the Realm, but not every member of his family needs a Wikipedia article, and we can't in any case use the family archives as sources Guy (Help!) 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, closing editor please see talk page foe details of block voting from a number of the Keep !voters on this AfD.--Vintagekits 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Due to continuing improvements and work, this article now has a good chance of being worthy. Thanks! :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Edison 17:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If sources satisfying WP:A can be added showing he was Treasurer of Scotland, I could certainly vote to keep on the basis of that. The family history is not the most reliable and independent source, and the terminology of 'auditor' is vague. Edison 05:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added another independant source. I am unaware how he may be related but would like to know. - Kittybrewster (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, great news - however the person isnt notable per WP:BIO.--Vintagekits 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he's not related can you explain why he's listed in your family's article - Arbuthnot family? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience. Same surname. Like noted photographer Malcolm Arbuthnot. - Kittybrewster (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's rather confusing also including him in Category:Arbuthnot family as well then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've remove the category and the entry in the family list, per Kittybrewster's comment above. -Will Beback · † · 04:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so he's not related to you but just has the same second name as you, he is listed on your families page and you created and are the own person to edit the article until the AfD - how embrassing!--Vintagekits 20:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this Arbuthnot doesn't seem notable. NawlinWiki 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable.--Vintagekits 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable person of good breeding is still non-notable. Carlossuarez46 20:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of historical importance. I think the term (auditor), though correct, was unfortunate. Unless I misunderstand the administration of the time, this was essentially the Treasurer for Scotland, and thus a major Cabinet officer. I am looking for additional sources to demonstrate his likely involvement in public affairs. DGG 01:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable article that fails WP:BIO. — Wenli 01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article is terribly stubby, but suggests a position of some importance to those familiar with the era. The "auditor of the exchequer", by this time, was a fairly lucrative sinecure in England, and presumably so also in Scotland. That, combined with his connection with Lord Stair, suggests political influence. He seems also to have been a friend of Adam Smith, the economist: [1]. That said, a search in Google Books will reveal the compiler of the original source (Memories of the Arbuthnots) asking, in Notes & Queries of 1918, for more information about him; if, indeed, this is the only information that came to light, probably no more will be forthcoming and the article is insufficient to be self-standing. Choess 03:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: some of his correspondence and papers are preserved in the Carnegie of Crego papers, but the summary given throws little additional light on his life. Choess 03:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Caution is needed here. For example a Google search for "Robert Arbuthnot" returns this, with a letter from Arbuthnot dated 1732. As this Robert Arbuthnot died in 1727 it's clearly not him. In fact it's actually the brother of the Dr John Arbuthnot mentioned in this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I'm aware of that curious phenomenon of different people having the same forename and surname. Click my link to the letter to Adam Smith, and then the "Biographical Notes" link, and you will find that the writer is described as "One of the auditors of the Scottish Exchequer". I have enough Google-fu, I hope, to keep my contributions germane. Choess 00:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: whilst the stub could do with expanding there can be no doubt that this was an important and notable position in Scotland, retained for some time after the 1707 Union. David Lauder 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have done some research and the position was that notable at all to be honest.--Vintagekits 09:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown thinks otherwise. David Lauder 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well Wikipedia notability guidelines couldn't care less what the Crown thinks! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- notable as the holder of a chief office in the government of the United Kingdom Astrotrain 14:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non-notable person, of no historical importance.--padraig3uk 15:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alas, that is untrue. This was an important position in Scotland and in the history of its institutions. Indeed you may be interested to know that an identical position existed in Ireland. The article simple needs more meat on it, like many other stubs on Wikipedia. David Lauder 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst the position may have been of some importance, and if so then the position itself may merit a article on its own, into which this persons role could be listed along with others that held the position. But as a individual he is non-notable.--padraig3uk 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Totally argee with you - the position MAY deserve an article of its own but the indiviuals who held it wouldnt. Maybe merge this article to the article about hte position?--Vintagekits 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oh good. Thats really clear logic. The position is notable but the people who hold it are not. David Lauder 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what are you not able to grasp about the concept? Is it too complicated for you? Let me provide you with a simple example that even you should be able to grasp. The occupation of a Dustman is notable enough to have an article - however, each and every Dustman would not be notable enough to have an article. Simple enough or do you need more help?--Vintagekits 00:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone can be a dustman. David Lauder 11:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well since you have no respect for our Waste disposal technician's - the same principle applies to Civil engineer, Architect or even a Rocket scientist, the point is that even if a job or role may be notable ever single person that does that job is not.--Vintagekits 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I'll take your 48hr silence as an acceptance of the point I made.--Vintagekits 14:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - holder of a position which was clearly notable. Lack of historical understanding obviously relevant to the AfD. --Counter-revolutionary 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, and march, left, right, left!--Vintagekits 16:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'd know all about marching. --Counter-revolutionary 16:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:BIO, in that regardless of what job he did, there is not "a good deal of verifiable information available" about him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does not fail WP:BIO. That page is only a guideline and in addition is currently so disputed that it is locked. You may not think he/his position notable but it was an important office of State and that makes the postholder, who received his commission from the King, equally important. This is just another back-door attack on User:Kittybrewster's work on Wikipedia. David Lauder 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that guidelines cannot be ignored simply because you don't agree with them. Also are you aware of the nature of the dispute? I can assure you that it does not affect why he fails WP:BIO. If you had taken the time to read what I said you would have noticed that my decision had nothing to do with his position, but to do with the lack of verifiable information available about him. WP:BIO states Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability and a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them - this article fails miserably on both counts. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know why you and Vintagekits lecture other Users as though we were (as Vintagekits has already put it) morons. Many if not most articles commence life as stubs. as such they would all fail your specific tests which virtually demand that any article is written up in several pages with masses of information and sources at the outset. Your behaviour on this and elsewhere, I hope, is being noted. David Lauder 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You failed to understand the specific reason why I stated this article failed WP:BIO, and claimed it did not fail the guideline at all and even if it did the guideline didn't matter. This article has existed for six months, so it's had ample time to grow and as Choess stated it's unlikely more information will be forthcoming. If you can provide more information please do so. Also your comments here show your motivation quite clearly, please see no personal attacks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I do not fail to understand anything at all. I am unable to say why another User thinks no more information would be forthcoming. How on earth could anyone know that? I see you are falling back on the personal attacks rules after you have fallen over yourselves provoking everyone else. I have made perfectly factual comments. If you are saying you are beyond reproach, then say it. David Lauder 12:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NPA clearly states - This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you do not retract your statement immediately I will take further action, and also include the vast number of similar comments you have made elsewhere. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Naturally I retract anything which is entirely untrue. Please do not speak to other Users in a threatening manner. You might also like to tell us what you think of Vintagekits comment on morons (in this instance referring to me - see this page's history page, 28 April)). Would you not say that was a personal attack? David Lauder 10:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, undoubtedly notable, in my opinion. Ab e g92contribs 18:29, 3 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.