Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Arbuthnot (civil servant)


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

George Arbuthnot
Non-notable. Ok, he worked in the British Government, I work in the American, do I get an article? -- no, because I don't merit one &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Connected to a couple of important political figures (Peel most of all), but that doesn't rub notability off onto him. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. What would happen if every civil service employee got an article? The US goverment alone has a few million employees. TJ Spyke 23:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a stub which will be developed. The subject is notable and has been mentioned in documents concerning Sir Robert Peel and Charles Wood, 1st Viscount Halifax. - Kittybrewster 00:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Question - does the fact that the subject was "mentioned in documents" concerning notable political figures make him notable? More broadly, in what way/s will expansion prove notability? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer - yes it does, see below. - Kittybrewster 09:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I still don't see it, even with the additional sources mentioned in this discussion. Bwithh seems to have hit the nail on the head with his analysis of the sources. To be fair, though, the type of mention he's got seems to be a step up from the kind I thought was meant (namely "one of Peel's secretaries was George Arbuthnot"), although it's still not notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Not an ordinary civil servant but private secretaries are relatively junior roles and they have no ex officio encyclopedic notability, and this one appears to have just worked for two notable people. Bwithh 00:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - He was a major (if not the most important) influence behind the modern form of British bureaucracy. He also influenced British policy on currency, including the setting up of new currencies in Empire dominions, and had far more influence than a mere "private secretary", even in the 19th century British government meaning of that word. His field isn't one that you find a lot of online references about; somebody's going to have to get out some old books and perhaps visit the British Museum to add in any reliable information from secondary sources. He may not be well-known to the 21st century, but he was notable. -- Charlene 01:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I already checked Google Books which archives 19th century books from Oxford and Harvard, as well as more recent history books. The only relevant hit is a book by Arbuthnot himself- a retrospective economic analysis at Sir John Peel's 1884 act regulating the issue of banknotes. This does not appear to be a landmark work, nor does it indicate encyclopedic notability for this fellow. You say he was influential but historians from the 19th century til now appear to have overlooked him. It may be that he had significant influence within government departments he worked in - but this does not necessarily make him encyclopedically notable. The same goes for faceless policy wonks within the No.10 Policy Unit in the 21st century who may have significant influence but no high office or exceptional influence. Bwithh 01:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 03:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography, the standard work on notable people in British history. If the DNB thinks he's notable enough to write about then we certainly should, with our countless articles on minor modern "celebrities". And as private secretary to a prime minister he is most certainly notable anyway; such people are not minor - many have received knighthoods. -- Necrothesp 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if he appears in the modern DNB, it looks like he's a carry-over from the 19th century edition. Here's the summary article from that version:. Unless his being "an authority of currency questions" can be substantively fleshed out with references to show some significance in economics, I don't see the encyclopedic notability. Article also doesn't mention him ever being a secretary to a Prime Minister. I sympathize with the overpopulation of current day nobodies in Wikipedia, but that's reason for culling, not expanding. Also, from browsing around the summary version, I'm not quite convinced of 19th century DNB's ironclad status as a reference work for notability. Bwithh 05:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As you say, that's the summary. The actual entry is six paragraphs, a relatively substantial article on a "non-notable" person (and much longer than many DNB articles)! -- Necrothesp 14:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Question:Does the DNB remove people once their notability has waned, or do they just leave them in? If it's the latter, his entry merely proves  that he had notability in the past, not that that notability continues to this day.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The DNB does not delete articles. But why should a person's notability fade? If they are notable in history then they are notable in history. Nobody appears in the DNB unless they are dead - Who's Who is the reference work on the living, and that includes far, far more people than the DNB. -- Necrothesp 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely you know that that is nonsense. Brittany Spears is notable now, will she be in 100 years?  Highly unlikely.  Jane Fernandes is notable right this minute, will she be in 50 years?  No.  The 15 minutes of fame concept covers far more people than does longevity of notability.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not nonsense at all, since the DNB does not include articles on living people (didn't I just say that?). Neither of those people would therefore merit an article in the DNB in the first place. They would (if they were British) be judged worthy or unworthy of an article after their deaths, not before. Since their shelf life is indeed likely to be short they are highly unlikely to merit such an article (unless they go on to have lifetime noteworthy careers). Please read what I actually wrote before you comment. -- Necrothesp 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote, and I find this "The DNB does not delete articles. But why should a person's notability fade? If they are notable in history then they are notable in history" to be nonsense. BTW, are you a member of the DNB's editorial board?  Are you privy to their methods or to their decisions?  How can a person's notability fade?  Surely that question was not serious.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see your reasoning. People's notability fades after they retire from public life, but if they were deemed notable for the DNB in the first place (after they were dead) then how can they be less notable now than they were then? Arbuthnot was included twenty years after his death. He was still considered notable then. Why is he any less notable now? He may be less well-known to the general public now (if he was ever at all well-known to the general public, which is doubtful), but that doesn't make him any less notable to an historian. Wikipedia is not meant to only include people who are well-known today, but people who were significant in their time. It seems to me that you are having trouble with the difference. -- Necrothesp 01:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course Britney Spears will be notable in a hundred years. She's a major pop star, and hence will be notable as a major figure in the music scene of the late 20th and early 21st century. If someone is really notable today, they're going to be notable to future researchers trying to understand today.--Prosfilaes 10:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if no sources corroborating importance can be found (and I'm doubting they can). Seems like a minor figure, and notability is almost never associative. Also move George Arbuthnot (disambiguation) to George Arbuthnot. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (but expand, please). Having an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography makes him pass both the pokemon test and the "more-notable-than-random-baseball-player-with-half-a-season-in-a-professional-league" test. up+land 07:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Senior Treasury civil servant, from the days before the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms so politically notable as well. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp. Catchpole 10:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp, but move to George Arbuthnot (civil servant) for disambiguation. Phoe  talk 10:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If he's in the DNB then I'm willing to believe he's scraping inside the notability and private sec to the PM is hardly any old civil servant as seems to be implied above. Article does really need more detail though and linking into the key decisions of the period so as to make the article useful and informative. Alci12 11:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Necrothesp. If he's notable enough to be in the DNB, he's more than notable enough for Wikipedia. Proteus (Talk) 14:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Important figue in British government. --Marriedtofilm 02:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep References in article appear sufficient to establish that he meets WP:BIO. GRBerry 00:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Week Keep. DNB record documents at least a minimum level of notability.--Prosfilaes 13:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Charlene, Fys, et al. I mean, serious claims have been made here (and not in my opinion satisfactorily refuted) that the man was very influential and notable. Maybe he wasn't; maybe he was only somewhat influential and notable. But does it matter? Either way you have to keep the article. Herostratus 07:00, 2 November 2006 (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.