Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Christie (Serjeant-at-Arms)

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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Christie (Serjeant-at-Arms)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no real claim to notability: he was Serjeant-at-Arms (an unelected public service position of little note) for the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. This isn't remotely a position conveying inherent notability (wouldn't even be in a federal parliament) and there's nothing else to suggest notability. Sources are mainly births/deaths/marriages and other trivial references. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 08:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources in article do not establish notability. My BEFORE doesn't seem to find much else, though I did find information on a different William Christie who served in the same capacity in 1849 (possibly father or grandfather) - [1] - so be wary of results that are too early when searching.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't establish notability although he had his honourable contributions. Too trivial for Wikipedia if you ask me. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete The equivalent of a bouncer/copyboy for parliament. Flagrantly non-notable Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of individual notability and, as others have noted, his position as serjeant-at-arms for a sub-national legislative chamber is not notable either. Eloquai (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The descriptions given by others trivialise the position. Nevertheless, he seems to have been a NN civil servant. I note that his is not in Australian Dictionary of Biography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone's comment here seeks to "trivialise the position" or argue that it's a meaningless role. Rather, they note that it is not a notable position for the purposes of establishing encyclopaedic notability and significance. We have articles for sergeants-at-arms in national legislatures, but not state/province level officeholders, which seems broadly appropriate. Eloquai (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’Keep’’’. This bloke wore a funny uniform so I reckon he can’t be all bad. What about being on the TAB? When you start looking at these people who delete I reckon they are worse than this Wally who puts up his school mates. When I notice you are all third public servants it all starts to make sense.Publicschoolboy (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is more here but it is single event type material and other, routine reporting. It could be used to significantly improve the article, but possibly not enough I think. Aoziwe (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is another example of the spamming of Wikipedia by the article creator with articles on non-notable people, and then an insistence on insulting anyone who questions there disruptive editing of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot see much evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The SMH obit is not bad, but ultimately routine. Frickeg (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2017 (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.