Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kenneth Barton


 * 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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). I deleted the article on one of the books he published after this AFD debate, but I recognize that authors themselves are more notable than the books they write. Note that the article at present reads more like a CV than something you would find in an encyclopedia, and needs some cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Kenneth Barton
No grounds given for notability. Writing a few minor books (only one of which is possessed by the British Library incidentally) and being a retired schoolmaster are not grounds for being included in an encyclopaedia. This almost looks like someone's genealogical research. Necrothesp 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hiya. I created this one... I'm pretty new here, but is it really a problem if I use a few bytes on this? Actually I've only just started this article, there are a whole lot more interesting biographical facts about AKB that I'm going to add, if you chaps will let me - e.g. he was a pupil of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien at Oxford in the 1930's, he taught John Wain (future Oxford Professor of Poetry) at Newcastle High School when Wain was a boy, he was in charge of the RAF cadet unit in which Anthony Benn served in the Second World War, he was a close acquaintance of Alan Bennett when Bennett was setting up the New Vic Theatre in Newcastle... Give me a chance? A hnau
 * I have to say that I don't think any of these are particularly notable achievements. I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing, but being the pupil or teacher of someone famous, commanding someone famous and knowing someone famous are not really grounds for notability. Many, many thousands of people could claim that. The question is, was he notable in his own right instead of by association? -- Necrothesp 11:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A hnau, you might want to read WP:NN and especially WP:BIO for information on who is and is not considered notable enough to start an article on. But welcome to Wikipedia, in any event, and please consider contributing to other pages no matter how this discussion is resolved! --Craig Stuntz 14:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the pointers; I did dive in without really checking the FAQ's, which is poor netiquette so apologies. I've read the links Craig recommended, and have a much clearer idea of the criteria for biographical entries now. Certainly AKB doesn't hit the big, obvious criteria, but there are one or two things which may convince folks to let him stay;

- the basic biographical information is verifiable (starting with the St Edmunds Hall Who's Who)

- his publications likewise are verifiable (Alibris, Abebooks, Internet Book List, getCITED, BookFinder.com all list and/or have for sale one or more of his books, and the BL lists both Circling the Square and Mystery in its catalogue; the Library of Congress lists Circling the Square in its holdings)

- all three of the educational institutions he studied or taught at have their own Wiki articles, so there are places to link to and from him, even if just as an 'Old Boy'

- certainly he has lots of connections as well as the ones I've already mentioned (e.g. he holidayed with Alvar Liddell's family in Devon as a child, his family knew the Jeromes as in Jerome K. Jerome, though I take the point about this not being conclusive)

If this tips the balance, I'd love to carry on adding to the article. A hnau


 * Delete per above. Stifle 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, published author, scope for an interesting article. Kappa


 * 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.