Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Thomson (Charterhouse)


 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

James Thomson (Charterhouse)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I can't see why the subject of this article is notable. He doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. He's a surgeon, hence the title FRCS which is a professional qualification, and now he looks after a Charterhouse. Googling him returns some very old, hardly references medical papers.

Besides that, the article is in such bad shape it would need a total rewrite. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no assertion of notability mentioned in the article. This might have been better suited for a proposed deletion. --§ Pump me up  13:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral for now, as I do not have the time to look for sources. However, he is not just Master of a Charterhouse, but the Master of a very important building in the City of London. He was also a pretty senior doctor and academic, so I would not be surprised if he does meet WP:ACADEMIC. The article needs work in several respects, but deletion is not obvious to me. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I have now had time to look for more sources. I think it is clear that he is notable. The number of references to him in the St Marks Hospital Annual Report 2006 attests to his significance in the hospital. A clinical director is, I think, a senior appointment. Lambeth Degrees are not common. His role at Charterhouse is significant and interesting. I am sure more can be found by someone who knows their way around the records of the medical profession. I see no reason to delete and several to keep. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Could you supply these reference, please? What about putting them into the article itself? I couldn't find anything myself. Thanks. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What references to you mean? The Annual Report is referenced. Just search it for Thomson. The role of the Master is pretty clear from the whole set of web pages about Charterhouse. I do not have a direct reference that says the Master of Charterhouse is notable. It just all adds up. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All that report says (and part of that report was written by the subject; so doesn't really count as third-party) is that he was a clinical director 15 years ago. He's now retired. Do we list every manager of every hospital unit? I can't find anything about his work that makes him notable. Okay, he was the boss... and? — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part was written by him apart from the obituary of someone? This is the annual report of a major UK hospital that is a teaching hospital of the University of London. The fact that he wrote part of it shows how senior he was. But is not just being a manager of a hospital unit. He was a Senior Surgeon. Charterhouse is important so its leader, the Master, is important. He is patron of a society alongside people who are clearly notable. The society does not just chose anyone. The Church Times, the major paper of the Church of England, has an article on him. As I said, Lambeth degrees are honorary degrees and relatively rare. It all adds up to notability, but as I said above I hope someone who understands the medical profession can add more sources about his medical positions. He is a person who has done a variety of things that have been noticed. I will leave it for the closing admin now. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that I don't reply? Okay, I won't. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  15:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. He may work with, or for, famous people, but Notability is not inherited. "The society does not just [choose] anyone" is not a reliable source. The awarding of a Lambeth degree may make him notable, but looking through Category:Holders of a Lambeth degree, I see only two of 57 who don't appear to be notable in some other fashion, adn they should probably be scrutinised to see if they, too, should be AfD'd, perhaps. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 02:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument about Lambeth degrees seems to me to be the wrong way round, If 55 out of 57 are notable in some other fashion, is it not that those other "fashions" are the reason why the degree was awarded? Lambeth degrees are awarded to people that the Church of England deems to be notable. So it seems like the small number that do not seem to be notable are just people where we have not found sources. Of course we need sources, but I would have thought that anyone who is awarded an honorary degree, including Lambeth degrees, would be notable enough for an article. We have sources. He was a senior medic, was awarded an honorary degree and is now Master of an important institution. I really do not see where the problem lies. Are there not readers who would want to find out about this man? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lambeth degrees are not awarded to people that the Church of England deems to be notable. According to this section of the Lambeth degree article, people have to sit theology exams to get these degrees. They're not honorary degrees that recognise fame or good work; they're just academic qualifications. (From the article: "Because they are substantive and not honorary degrees...") — Fly by Night  ( talk )  14:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I recognise that they are wider than I thought, but I do not think you read that article close enough. The section you refer to does indeed talk about examinations, but those degrees do not include the Doctor of Medicine that he was awarded. The examinations are for the Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology and the Master of Arts. The Doctorates are dealt with in the section above, where it says "They are, in a sense, awarded in recognition of prior learning or experience but also serve as a form of church honours system". So he was given an honour by the Church and because his experience was in Medicine he was awarded the Doctor of Medicine. See "An eminent and much-published scholar may be considered suitable for a doctorate,..". This link describes them as honorary degrees. So they are not like Honorary degrees from a UK university where a politician may be given a degree in Law with no knowledge of law, but the doctorates are clearly "a form of church honours system" and he is "eminent and much-published". -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The same link says you can nominate colleagues by sending in their CVs! — Fly by Night  ( talk )  22:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So? As an academic I have always been able to nominate people for honorary degrees by the university where I worked. It does not mean they will agree with me. There is a process and I am sure Lambeth also has a process. The fact remains that James Thomson's MD from Lambeth is an honorary degree recognising his eminence. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're on your own. Three of us think it should go. You're the lone voice. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  15:53, 4 December 2010 (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.