Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Arbuthnot (politician)

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. I believe the keep arguments are clearly stronger here, as Wikipedia is not paper, and we have precedent saying that this level of political achievement is reasonable. It's no surprise this is still a stub, but policy says that is okay. If this was an article about someone contemporary, that might be one thing, but the internet is not exactly bursting at the seams with information about Scotland's parliament in the 18th century, so this information would be difficult to replace. That said, the article is pretty short, and a merge may be attempted, following the usual WP:BRD process. Mango juice^talk 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Arbuthnot (politician)[edit]

This article has existed for over a year and hasn't expanded very much. A shire commisioner for the Parliament of Scotland was an appointment given to lower ranks of the gentry and peerage. I have looked high and low for anything on this person that doesn't come from the Arbuthnot family book and I can't find anything (I initially thought I had but the Commissioner Arbuthnot/t or Arbuthnot/t, Commissioner all referred to other people). Delete and summarize at Viscount of Arbuthnott if necessary. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and summarise per nom. Looks like another example of the encyclopædia being confused with a genealogical resource. – Kieran T ^(talk) 12:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone unearths some further information , which may prove notability, as it is I see none. Giano 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of every name in someone's genealogy, when multiple reliable independent sources with substantial coverage of them can be found, as needed to write an encyclopedic article. Fails WP:A, WP:BIO. Edison 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, because notability asserted per WP:BIO as a member of a national Parliament. Needs more sources, though, so I have tagged it with {{moresources}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it's a "secondary criterion"... to quote regarding politicians: "Note 5: This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." — so we're partially back to wanting to see other writing about him, and also the question is raised as to how much of a "major political office" he held in the parliament (meaning no offence to the Scots Parliament of course!) – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already been there for a year and that's all everyone's managed to come up with. I've looked extensively myself and there is nothing there. It is entirely pointless to insist on having separate biographies for people when they are clearly so non notable that they are only mentioned in Burke's peerage and a family book. The information can easily be added to his father's page or the Viscount of Arbuthnott page. I should also point out the Arbuthnot family association only considers 13 Arbuthnots as actually "famous" and this Arbuthnot is not on the list [1] (amazingly I think the list was created by KittyBrewster). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gustav, have you checked only online, or in the libraries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huge numbers of older books (which are likely the only place he would be mentioned) are now indexed online at Google Books and Amazon- I've searched for all the phrases I can think of but none of them refer to him. Are there any specific books you think might mention him? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep If someone is willing to work on it, let them. I'm unaware of time restrictions on wiki .. can someone point me to where notable figure get deleted for not being attended to in a set time? DDB 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that argument is it can be made indefinitely - no one can rule out the possibility that something might be found however unlikely that is but I don't think that's a good reason to not redirect the article at the moment. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a member of the national legislature, which has so far always been accepted at AfD, and so it should, because such people will be in histories, even if kb is too negligent to look beyond the confines of her family's genealogy books. The rule is Verifiable, not verified. The commissioners were, according to the Parliament of Scotland article , "the third estate of burgh commissioners (representatives chosen by the royal burghs)" -- borough MPs in the UK, not what it might sound like as a minor election official. I think this disposes of the argument that it was not a significant political office.

Can't expect to find the same sourcing as in the 20th century, which is why we have the secondary criterion--it means he is N unless shown otherwise. (unlike the world in general, which goes the other way).DGG 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference found from Google books, which gets more content by the day. Provided the additional information, that he subsequently represent another consitituency. DGG 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it interesting that the reference you found says he represented Bervie up to 1707, even when he died in 1705. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note User:Kittybrewster has confirmed that the Alexander who represented Bervie was a different Alexander Arbuthnot. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It still does not assert notability, however. You can cite the fact that hes married, when he died, etc., but if it doesn't assert notability, then its moot. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a WP:RS for his parliamentary service is found, otherwise delete being an MP in Scotland seems to satisfy WP:N, however there's no RS for it cited. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article about the equivalent of a Member of Parliament. The references added have made it a valid stub. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- Kittybrewster (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person who wrote this and for reasons iterated above, I naturally !vote keep. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and summarise per nom - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 07:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there are sources to tell more of his political involvement-Doc^g 07:52, 13 June 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.