Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Murray Arbuthnot

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. - brenneman 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Murray Arbuthnot

Non notable person; assertion of notability is having founded a non-notable (redlinked) law firm. Recreated article after a speedy delete. References only to primary author's website. Argyriou (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked out the 'references', apparently this guy is indeed a member of a family. Wow, who knew? SubSeven 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without an assertion of the lawfirm's notability, cannot support the retention of this article. Happy to change to support if lawfirm is shown notable. --Dweller 12:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the article that asserts notability. --SunStar Net^talk 12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf photoman 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add more references. The red linked law firm has been renamed (blue link). - Kittybrewster 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's a weblink, rather than a Wikipedia internal link to a notable law firm. If it's a notable firm, please feel free to write an article about it. --Dweller 14:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kittybrewster appears to be related to the subject of this article (see here), and Kittybrewster, David Lauder, and Astrotrain have been block-voting on AfDs over the last week. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I beg your pardon? I really do think you are getting a bit ahead of yourself. I voted on AfD's as I felt I should, not because of, or as instructed by, anyone else. Your suggestion of some sort of cartel or conspiracy is out of order. David Lauder 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's been quite a bit of canvassing among these editors of late - examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said "block-voting" which is not the same thing. And I have not canvassed anyone. My votes have been my own. I wish I'd never bothered for all the attacks I've had. David Lauder 20:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster is unaware of any relationship to/with the subject. If Darcy can substantiate this false allegation then several people would be delighted. The article was created to blue a red link. I agree that the article would benefit from additional references and they will be added when time allows (meaning quite soon). The red link was created by another editor and several editors have contributed to the article. I did draw one person's attention to the afd but s/he has not yet contributed. - Kittybrewster 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not sufficiently asserting notability. This is a geneological listing for the Arbuthnot family, and possibly a legal directory listing. However, Wikipedia is not a directory. Also possible conflict of interest, as article is created by Kittybrewster. Ohconfucius 05:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No conflict of interest. Created in order to remove a red link. - Kittybrewster 09:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: founder of a major international US law firm, whose family are also notable. David Lauder 08:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Family doesn't make one notable unless one holds a title of nobility. There's no source that says the law firm is major in any sense of the word. Argyriou

(talk)20:23,2 February 2007 (UTC).

Complete rubbish. There are a great many untitled notable and famous families. If you look in Scottish Supplications to Rome you will see endless descriptions of people as "of noble race" or "of noble family" or "kinsman to".David Lauder 09:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not sufficiently asserting notability. The only source provided not satisfy WP:RS--Vintagekits 11:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable individual Astrotrain 12:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have proof of this notability (e.g. major cases he led), please supply it, as the article is sorely lacking. 128.243.220.22 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he was a lawyer and has relatives, neither of which is notable. Beyond this there are no claims to notability, and more importantly, no sources. Nuttah68 14:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was created to blue a red link in another article; the subject was a founder and still-named partner of a major international law firm; but perhaps most importantly, this article was nominated for deletion five days after it was created. I think perhaps the appropriate template to apply would have been a stub, not an AfD. This smells of bad faith to me. Laura1822 16:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sole red link was created by the author of this article. This article was created on Dec 25 and nominated Jan 30, slightly more than five days. Not even the company website claims that the firm is 'major international law firm'. 'This smells of bad faith to me.' Nuttah68 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Check your math. There are many more than 5 days between 25 December and 30 January.

Argyriou (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have been looking at another page's history. In fact, the article in question was created on December 24th, not 25th. I stand by the rest of it. Lack of sources and needing expansion are not grounds for deletion: they are grounds for a template requesting sources or expansion. Laura1822 06:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not sufficiently asserting notability. Turgidson 21:11, 3 February 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.

Robert M. Arbuthnot was lead trial counsel in the seminal case of Tarasoff v. U.C. Regents, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), which was the first U.S. case to impose liability on a psychotherapist for not disclosing a patient's violent propensities. This has completely altered the landscape of the psychotherapist-patient relationship and privilege, as well as malpractice law. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasoff_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California. See Superior Court of Alameda County, Case No. 405694

And in other cases? - Kittybrewster 08:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]