Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Alves Arbuthnot


 * 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. Sr13 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John Alves Arbuthnot

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable. Being a businessman, the son of a baronet, or part of the Arbuthnot family walled garden does not make someone notable, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 303 10:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Arbuthnot family being a walled garden is unfortunate. But peerage and baronetcies do convey notability; see WikiProject_Peerage (part of WikiProject Biography). - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Baronets and peers may be notable, but that's a seperate argument. However this person is neither a peer nor a baronet, please read the article and the nomination. One Night In Hackney 303 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. After talking to Vintagekits, I've come to the conclusion I've mixed up Baron and Baronet. Since he couldn't have inherited the second title, he's not nobility and thus not notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite the fact I support keeping the articles on baronets, this person is just a businessman, and their are no decent sources cited. Perhaps a mention in his father's article. J Milburn 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. OK so the article tell us he worked for a living and had children, fails WP:BIO. -- Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- disruptive nomination as part of a campaign against the Arbuthnot family. Astrotrain 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Please comment on the notability not the nomination.--Vintagekits 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete the only possible claim to notability is being a JP, but nothing to indicate he was involved in any high-profile case etc that could raise him over the bar. BTW, he was definitely not a baronet (although personally, I think there's nothing at all notable about baronets either, given the sheer quantity of them and the meaninglessness of the title) —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  13:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In light of BrownHairedGirl's digging, escalating to Strong delete — this also seems to cast doubt on the truthfulness of a number of other Arbuthnot articles —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Arbuthnot Latham & Co. the individual is not notable but it is possible that the private bank is however the sources are poor and carry only trivial information with no depth of coverage which if unimproved therefore fails WP:V.--Vintagekits 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be a non-notable 19th century businessman. Being named Arbuthnot is not enough to achieve inherent notability on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could create an "Arbuthnotpedia" to provide a place for complete details of all persons in that distinguished family tree. Edison 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It already exists - where do you think all these Arbuthnot articles are coming from? —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, as this is a member of your family I am not sure you should be !voting in this AfD due to WP:COI.--Vintagekits 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a member of that family, User:Kittybrewster should comment and should provide any relevant information that isn't in the article nor earlier in this discussion, so long as she identifies her conflict of interest. However, simply providing a keep not-a-vote and an assertion (without identifying herself as a family member) is not useful and is frowned upon under WP:COI.  Providing sources of independent non-trivial coverage would be far more useful. Barno 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. That bank he founded exists since 1833. That makes the bank notable by sheer age, and founders of long-standing corporations and organizations are notable too. - Mgm|(talk) 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not convinced that old companies are inherently notable, and the article on the bank currently holds a notability tag- show me some sources that prove this bank is notable, I will change my mind about this person. JMilburn 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that Arbuthnot Latham was one of the accepting houses shows its status. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator, simply not notable. Burntsauce 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mgm. This is is the biography of the founder of a merchant bank which still exists after 170 years. Yes, it would be nice if it was expanded, so I have tagged it with UK-business-bio-stub. It's a pity to see the discussion on Kittybrester's talk page, which makes it clear that this is part of a pattern of bad faith nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment evidence of self-referencing sources, below, has persuaded me to change my vote to a strong delete. For further details, see below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think its pretty pathetic that you are attacking the nominator instead of focusing on the notability of the individual. If Kitty is going to create a stub article for every single person in his family then he is going to get this attention. The is no evidence that the bank was notable then or what size it was or or the link to its current incarnation so everything you have just said is WP:OR - try being objective in future rather than blindly sticking up for your mate from the Baronet Project - you are becoming like some of the other editors!--Vintagekits 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, please. I have given my !vote on the basis of how the article, not out of any loyalty to anyone. As I have said before, you and Kittybrewster and a circle of others are engaged in an increasingly disruptive dispute; please desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per Mgm and BHG. This stub could be developed but the subject has notability as a founder of a merchant bank.--Bill Reid | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is disgraceful that some editors have, in a bad faith manner, appear to target every stub article that this well respected contributor has created.--Bill Reid | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didn't say he was the founder, I said he was a founder. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your knowledge of the history of banking is regretably very poor. Please read Merchant bank --Bill Reid | Talk 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Comments/arguments by User:Vintagekits which were rebutted by User:Billreid have been deleted from the immediately preceding dialogue. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per arguments put forward by Vintagekits, padraig3uk, Edison et al Cloveoil 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article is more about his abilities in the procreative department than about anything else. And here on this side of the pond, one got the impression that being a titled nobleman meant you didn't have work for a living. I guess inflation has hit the titled lords as well. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Quite simply is not notable. --Domer48 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Of the two sources cited in the article, one is a family memoir (not independent) and the other is a directory listing in a peerage guide (trivial). Arguments of type "All X are notable," reflect a misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The family memoir was published Allen & Unwin, a major publisher. That makes it a reliable source. Tyrenius 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's reliable, but it's not really independent of the subject. One Night In Hackney 303 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The publisher is independent of the subject, and the publisher endorses the material. This is entirely different to a self-published source. Tyrenius 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What I'm getting at is that WP:N calls for coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which I take to mean completely independent, ie "that person is important, I'll write about him", whereas with the book being written by a member of the family the independence is diminished. Even ignoring that, apart from his offspring there isn't much in the way of non trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney 303 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What Hackney said. Moreover, a publisher most certainly does not "endorse" all the material it publishes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

*Keep and per Giano.--Docg 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Merge into the bank, noting else is notable.--Docg 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mgm, Billreid and BHG. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Yes, the firm is old.  That may even make the firm notable.  It might even justify a redirect.  But it does not justify this article.  Wikipedia is not the Arbuthnot family's private genealogy site. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Arbuthnot Latham & Co. Catchpole 11:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a very poor and hurried biography which provides virtually no useful information on the subject to substantiate the claim of notability. However the bank he co-founded is long established and does still exist  and is certainly notable if only in the rarified echelons of finance in the City of London.  Therefore the limited information given just (and only just) permits this man to be encyclopedia worthy.  These Arbuthnot pages are for the most part very limited in the information they provide.  We clearly have amongst us a person very  knowledgable on the subject of the Arbuthnots but if s/he does not soon to decide to share a little more of that knowledge with us we are going to see a lot more pages such as this nominated as candidates for deletion on the grounds on non-notability which, at the moment, is a natural conclusion to draw from the information given.  I would suggest if the author wishes to see these pages retained he finishes one page properly and thoroughly before moving on to the next in future. Giano 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteyet per Giano. There does seem to be somewhat exaggerated/tendentious sense of notability for members of this family. (e.g., Ernest Kennaway Arbuthnot). To move forward a civil discussion, perhaps Kittybrewster could explain their criteria for deciding when to not give an Arbuthnot a separate article. Perhaps the User would agree to a voluntary moratorium on new stubs until this is sorted out? Otherwise, this could lead to a problematic precedent. Personally, while I might agree that John Alves is notable, I'd recommend merging a slew of these smaller biographies into a broader yet still respectful article, e.g. "Arbuthnot family: Less prominent members". Were this not in dispute, I might boldly merge some of these stubs together myself. HG 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Data analysis: currently there are 86 entries under Arbuthnot family Arbuthnot family. Compare to 13 in Fairfax, 12 in Haldane. Consider Webster's Biographical Dict as a benchmark. Webster lists 2 Arbuthnots (John b.1667, Robert Keith) yet 5 for Fairfax and 7 Haldane. Were we to assume that Webster's has a fair ratio of notability, then either Arbuthnot should be cut back to about 5 (i.e., 2/5 of Fairfax). Otherwise, holding Arbuthnot steady at 86, then Fairfax and Haldane should be expanded to 215 (5/2*86) and 301 (7/2*86) articles respectively. In any case, something is amiss and the criteria for Arbuthnots needs to be tightened up. HG 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While this subject here just qualifies as notable, I agree with much of HG's comments above but people are either notable (worthy of an article) or that are not. We do not want to start having pages entitled the "Higginbottom family" detailing the lives of numerous people of no consequence because one second cousin was momentarily a Member of Parliament in the 1880s.  I was reading one of the Arbuthnot pages earlier (Ernest Kennaway Arbuthnot) in which one member of the family had done nothing of interest except become a Chief Constable in the 1920s, marry a glorified chorus girl and gain a couple of less than rare medals.  At that time Chief Constable was largely (I believe) an honory position given to any upstanding member of the local gentry - note  I say gentry not the higher  aristocracy - not that that should make a difference to notability - but I know to some here it does! I think  someone needs to "sit down" with Kittbrewster and reasonably say look - some of these pages can be improved and are of use - the others  - well frankly they are not of use, these people are not notable lets have a sort through them and decide which can be dispensed with.  Every British titled family has hundreds of  lesser members who were/are awarded medals and various honory positions because of their connections and name rather than their rank and notability.   Ivor No-Chin-Faceache, great grandson of the 14th Earl of Scrotum and was one of 1000,000 soldiers mentioned in despatches during World War I was doubtless brave, that he dragged a child out of a swimming pool in 1926 is commendable, that he was chairman of his local Rotary Club is admirable but none of these things  make a man notable.   Its a fine line but it has to be drawn sooner or later so it may as well be sooner. Giano 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, unless he is not in DNB, which is the test of notability in this area, not some high schooler's pov. Remember, every drummer of every garage band of the 1990s is "notable" at Wikipedia.--Wetman 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Where do you get that he's in the DNB from? It takes all of ten seconds to see that he isn't —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I'd say keep as the guy is notable for being a founder of Arbuthnot Latham & Co., which aside from being founded in 1833 is an accepting house, but there is very little information here and it could easily be put in with the bank page. With only two founders, the list is pretty short. A redirect could then be made to point to the bank page. Aspenocean 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Do we actually have any evidence that this is the Arbuthnot who founded the bank? I can't find a single source for it —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * - Kittybrewster  (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, seems legitimate —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster is Sir William Arbuthnot, so Kittybrewster has just cited himself as a source. On that basis, I have to assume that the other sources cited cannot be taken to be reliable. Assuming good faith, the self-reference may have been an oversight, but it calls into question the independence all of Kittybrewster's sourcing, and without WP:RS reliable sources, the article has no place on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Changing my !vote on the basis of the exchange above. The second reference cited there, is http://www.thepeerage.com/p12400.htm#i123993 ... but when I check that, the source turns out to be http://www.thepeerage.com/s1.htm#1438 which reads "[S1438] Arbuthnot, Sir William "re: Arbuthnot and Duff Families." E-mail message from  at unknown address. 29 August 2005 and 11 January 2006."
 * Is it your contention that Kittybrewster is also Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes? Aspenocean 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. But if you check http://www.thepeerage.com/p12400.htm#i123993, the only source for his involvement with the bank is Kittybewster; Mosley is a source only for the birth, marriage and death details. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but do you think that the editor of Burkes Peerage added it without being more than reasonably sure the information was correct? I have found a source for John Alves Arbuthnot being the Sub-Governor of "THE LONDON ASSURANCE INC. A.D. 1720" John Vandenberg 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I have seriously tried to see the possibilities of these Arbuthnot pages, but I am forced following discussions with their creator, and the comments by BrownHairedGirl above to concede that Wikipedia would be better off without them. When more information and more importantly references are available then someone can always recreate them with sound and reliable proof of notability. Giano 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Wikipedia must not be a joke. Kittybrewster is the source of the source he is using per BrownHairedGirl research. Aatomic1 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this whole discussion was initiated on the basis of notability (not references, conflict of interest, personal attacks, or assumptions) and it's looking like this will be deleted on the basis of votes not dealing with notability,. The article is about John Alves Arbuthnot not Kittybrewster. My vote above for a Merge still stands.Aspenocean 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, I no longer that it is entirely appropriate to separate the editor from the sources. The baseline test of notability is multiple independent, reliable sources, but the originator of this article has now confirmed the only apparently independent source is in fact a self-reference back to the subject's own family. The conflation of the issues is unfortunate, but I fear that it is inevitable when there has been so much editing in breach of WP:COI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced that the sources are unreliable. "Independent sources" can refer to anyone who is not the subject in question, and the subject in question is certainly dead. (No pun intended.) Biographical information almost always has to originate with some one related to the subject in some manner (friends, family, co-workers). Biography is almost always tinged with the subjective because of the nature of these sources. You could argue that the article needs more references as many others have, but you still haven't argued that the man's accomplishments are not notable (or shown that this is not the same man who accomplished these things, or that the sources are unreliable.) Relation does not equal unreliability, and you don't provide any other argument against reliability. Further, I doubt that the source in question would have known the subject personally. Aspenocean 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Citing a publication that uses your e-mail as a source is original research, which is right out, however. I did notice that the source relies on other sources as well.  It's still a directory listing, and thus trivial, however. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The content of the email cited is not available to us and as such it is speculation to claim it as being original research. The content of Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition is available to us, and connects him with Alfred Latham and subsequently Arbuthnot Latham & Co. It was one of the accepting houses and has unusual longevity (founded 1833). The bank is notable, and its founder is notable. I still say they can be merged and a redirect added.


 * Keep: The founder of an old established merchant bank is of course notable. I suggest efforts be made to research and expand the subject/article. Can't help thinking this is just another bad faith AfD nomination. David Lauder 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The assertion of notability needs to be backed up by references. Unfortunately, the only sources in the article are not reliable and independent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The on-line peerage is pretty reliable and I have added another on-line source as well as a paper one. Being a Justice of the Peace, a county High Sheriff, and founder of a major and well-known merchant bank must surely rank as notable? David Lauder 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I  think this is interesting Kittybrewster uses as a ref:   Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot "Memories of the Arbuthnots" (1920). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Yet the same publishers in the same year published "Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire" by Ada Jane Evelyn Arbuthnot

Odd that two Arbuthnot wives should simultaneously publish works so similar - very odd! There is the possible explanation that Kittybrewster forgot to add the last part of the title - but would those qualifying Scottish counties include the Irish branch which it seems to? Then the name Ada Jane could have been Mrs Peter Arbuthnot - but why change the author's name. Too many questions? Plus the fact the wretched woman seems to be able to rmemeber people who died almost 100 years before she wrote her book - Amazing. I would like an answer.Giano 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems Ada Jane and Mrs P S-M are one and tha same person - and the book is online on Kittybrester's own site with Kittybrewster owning the copyright of this 87 year old work. Giano 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That probably is legitimate - copyright in Scotland is 70 years after the death of the creator, so as long as she survived 17 years after writing the book her descendants would still own copyright. BTW, what the hell is Arbuthnot Latham - a minor bank that doesn't even exist - doing on UK banks, especially given that the company that now owns it isn't there? —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:This is a major merchant bank which raises in excess of 20 pages of hits on Google. David Lauder 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mergeinto the bank. I have checked DNB, and there are only 15 Arbuthnots with articles, all listed below, all with articles in WP. However others are mentioned, sometimes in substantial paragraphs. I would not limit the Arbutnot articles to those 15--some of the successive baronets are included only as paragraphs. (This John neither has an article, nor is he mentioned.)
 * Arbuthnot, Alexander (1538–1583), Church of Scotland minister and college head
 * Arbuthnot, Sir Alexander John (1822–1907), administrator in India
 * Arbuthnot, Charles (1767–1850), diplomatist and politician
 * Arbuthnot, Sir Charles George (1824–1899), army officer
 * Arbuthnot, Forster Fitzgerald (1833–1901), orientalist
 * Arbuthnot, George (1802–1865), civil servant
 * Arbuthnot [née Fane], Harriett (1793–1834), diarist
 * Arbuthnot [Arbuthnott], John (bap. 1667, d. 1735), physician and satirist
 * Arbuthnot, Marriot (1711–1794), naval officer and colonial governor
 * Arbuthnot, Robert, of Haddo (1728–1803). See under Select Society (act. 1754–1764).
 * Arbuthnot, Sir Robert (1773–1853), army officer
 * Arbuthnot, Sir Robert Keith, fourth baronet (1864–1916), naval officer
 * Arbuthnot, Sir Thomas (1776–1849), army officer
 * Arbuthnott, Robert, first viscount of Arbuthnott (c.1618–1655), politician
 * The article in British Journal of Sociology mentions a number of Arbuthnots: Col. George Arthbutnot, & Gerald Arbuthnot, both of who went into Parliament; Charles George Arbuthnot, a director of the Bank of England, and F.S and A.H, as pat of a list of those attending Eton. It does not mention this one at all. Nothing in JStor does. Nothing substantial in Google Scholar does (he's included in 4 lists in Notes and Queries). DGG 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources: the DNB is supposed to be available at every UK public and academic library. This has the potential to upgrade the quality of our UK bios. A list of the persons included with full articles is now available free as Oxford Biographical Index. To find the ones with paragraphs you need to search the real thing. Outside the UK, large & medium-sized academic libraries should have it.   DGG 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: Not sure what you're trying to say here but if you are citing the DNB as a yardstick of notables it is a mistake. It is far from inclusive, just as Who's Who is far from inclusive. I was asked to contribute to the latest DNB and did so, with six articles. In the final event, none were included and no explanation offered. I know another who was also asked to contribute (he works at the National Library of Scotland) and of his four biographies none were published. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is a new encyclopaedia, not a mirror of an existing one. It is good that we have biographies/stubs to be built upon here which have yet to appear in the DNB. My other question is: will the thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia stubs all be treated like this one? David Lauder 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment David I don't know who who you are nor realy care, but to me notable people are people are one's that have contributed something to benefit mankind in some way, either through medicine or science or some oher way, not self profit for profit alone, so onless this person did something other then for self profit then he is meaningless in my opinion.--padraig3uk 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Paidrag, notable businessmen are also notable. Even politicians are. Even generals. For that matter, even murderers. The question is whether his commercial activites are notable enough among bankers, and whether enough reliable documentation exsists.
 * As for DNB, I would say as a minimum that everyone with a full article or a section in DNB is notable. A great many other people are also. I certainly would not limit WP to them. But it helps to have some accepted point. If someone were to say that none of that name were notable, we can show otherwise. Similarly all members of the Royal Society are notable. and so are many thousands of other scientists and scholars. I was primarily pointing at the wide availability of this references source, as a way of upgrading the biographies of those people who are included. But I'm glad to here from a contributor--if you have any comments about the reliability of either the criteria or the quality, I'd very much like to here them, and the talk page for the article on it would be the place. DGG 06:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into the bank.  Montco 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. So far in the two Arbuthnot family Afds I have see in the last 24hrs, accusations of "walled garden" and lack of sources are primarily because the articles are developed by one person, using the sources they have at hand.  Each time I have been able to find other credible sources to verify the facts, and adding appropriate incoming links to the articles was not difficult.  If this Arbuthnot is really not as notable as the rest of the chaps, then a merge into Arbuthnot family would be an appropriate way to not loose the valuable contribution.  John Vandenberg 04:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3 of the references seem to be connected to the primary author of this page a fourth reference does not cite its own sources. Giano 08:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per editors Astrotrain, Mgm, Bill Reid, Bastun, Wetman, David Lauder, John Vandenberg and WP:NOTPAPER. — Athaenara 15:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into the article on the bank, per DGG. Most of the info in the article is the list of his eleven children, none of whom have their own WP articles. If the article is kept, I believe the list of his children can be omitted as mere genealogy. EdJohnston 01:51, 15 May 2007 (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.