Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Galsworthy


 * 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   speedy keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Galsworthy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:DIPLOMAT. All I can find in terms of google hits and google books are mentions where he is listed on lists of diplomats such as:  and lists of CMG such as:. There may be reliable sources to establish notability at the level suggested for WP:DIPLOMAT, but I am unable to find them. If those sources are turned up by someone, then I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. But if they are not, it has been marked for 3 months as not citing any references, and it is likely time to be deleted without the successful discovery of such sources to document notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * speedy keep. I am extremely concerned that User:ConcernedVancouverite is conducting a childish campaign of intimidation against me. What have I don? I've only written genuine articles about genuinely notable people'. He knows nothing about this subject; yet he wades making a mess of things, of that I am not surprised. User:ConcernedVancouverite should be banned for vandalism and being disruptive. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. References? Try using your brain and looking at Who's Who. Notability? Knighthood indicates notability. Flying Fische (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I will ignore your personal attacks as you are clearly just very passionate about the topic, but I do encourage you to re-read No_personal_attacks. In terms of the content of your statement, almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood, so in this case it does not appear to confer notability considering the guidance for all diplomats worldwide as stated here WP:DIPLOMAT.  I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources (as Who's Who is not a particularly wonderful source to establish notability, as it has a bias to include all Baronetage, regardless of how minor their achievements, and misses many more notable folks).  As such, as I mentioned if you would be kind enough to provide some reliable sources to establish notability at the WP:DIPLOMAT level I would be happy to withdraw my nomination.  Until that point, I will leave it, so that either you or others will do proper sourcing on the article (or barring that delete the article).  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have "personally attacked" nobody, indeed I and my perfectly good contributions are constantly under attack and intimidation for no apparent reason from people like you. Now FYI, Who's Who is a perfectly good source to indicate both notability and provide references.  I'm sorry if you don't agree with it because it's deemed "socially conservative" (tbh WP:NOTINHERITED seems to be a product of this liberal idealism as well).  It is a vast resource of information on the British establishment that contains such useful information.  Yes, it misses some people outside of the establishment, but that's OK because Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral so already has articles on all premiership footballers and others who have achieved in other ways.  The fact is that Wikipedia is not paper, so the inclusion of those in Who's Who and Debrett's, perfectly cited, is not going to adversely impact any other parts of the encyclopedia. If anything, Wikipedia needs more articles on the establishment, not less.  It is quite clear that the editors of those publications consider them to be notable; remember they do this professionally and ultimately for commercial purposes.  It is not in their interest to include biographies of people who aren't notable. If they were making money they would revise their editorial practices.  Obituary writers for the major broadsheets, are also going to include such people, even if they don't mean such arbitrary standards as "WP:DIPLOMAT" actually appears to fall short.  Again, we need more of this not less; now in an ideal world and encycleopedia would be written "top down" - the most important people first, followed by those slightly less important, and so on until the borderline cases are reached.  Editors are probably further down that triangle with sportsmen, singers than with diplomats.  So diplomats are more notable than many of the others included here otherwise without question. Flying Fische (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. An ambassador, high commissioner, colonial governor and knight. Ridiculous nomination. Incidentally, the nominator's statement that "almost all British diplomats are automatically assigned Knighthood" is utter rubbish. Only senior ambassadors are usually knighted towards the end of long and distinguished careers. In any case, we as a rule keep articles on anyone who has been knighted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ambassadors still require satisfaction of WP:DIPLOMAT, which there have been no reliable sources provided to support.  I have searched and have not turned them up.  If he is notable, then please do provide the citations.  Regarding knighting, you may want to make some edits to KCMG then which currently states, "People are appointed to the Order rather than awarded it. British Ambassadors to foreign nations are regularly appointed as KCMGs or CMGs." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the part "...or CMGs". A CMG is not a knighthood; a KCMG is. Mid-ranking ambassadors are often appointed CMG, but to be appointed KCMG one has to be pretty senior. Somebody who is notable enough to have been knighted is certainly notable enough for Wikipedia. Even most people appointed CMG would be considered notable. Note this from higher up the notability guideline you have just quoted: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." A knighthood most definitely counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor". The general notability guideline is thus satisfied. In addition, notability guidelines are not proscriptive, as you appear to think they are: "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Notability." Just because someone does not meet a narrow set of criteria (very narrow in the case of WP:DIPLOMAT) does not disqualify them from being the subject of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Somebody who has received a knighthood is notable as having received a significant award or honour. I agree too with the notion that Wikipedia is not just to record popular personalities or contemporary politicians. I understand why WP:DIPLOMAT might have been written in the terms it was because there is a need to avoid notability by inheritance from particualr events. But senior government officials and so forth get little attention and often make a greater contribution to the public than politicians, and the fact that they are little known actually makes their entry in Wikipedia more valuable. --AJHingston (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT. Gbooks search suggests a role in handling of affairs during the 1967 riots in Hong Kong (see, e.g., ). There is also a full obituary in the Times when he died, which is available to anybody with Lexis or some similar database. Ray  Talk 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination - Thank you to RayAYang for providing a citation to establish notability. Since that has been located, I can now withdraw the nomination as promised in the original nomination.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.