Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Bevan (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard Bevan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not finding anything that demonstrates that Richard Bevan was independently notable. He was the son of a banker, the father of a banker, and altogether a rather run-of-the-mill banker from the sounds of it (he did nothing of note himself). The references are mainly "a list of everybody who's ever done something" pieces or vaguely primary sources such as histories of the banks he belonged to. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Co-founder of Barclays Bank. Moreover, this second nomination seems premature (the serial nominator removed the tag which read "Please do not rush to mark it for deletion" only three days after his first attempt/this was created...). Very strange behaviour.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're accusing me of socking, then you're seriously mistaken; I have nothing to do with the original nominator, and have only keept tabs on this page since closing the first withdrawn AfD. In revisiting the page today I realised that (a) the new page tag was inappropriate for BLP articles, and (b) the page was at a point where any claims of significance (especially after the first AfD) would have been made. There is no indication that he was a co-founder of Barclays, only a partner in the firm that eventually became Barclays (there are a lot of names in those firms, btw). If you can find definitive evidence that he was a key player in the creation of Barclays, then I will definitely reconsider this nomination. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you don't know the topic. The Bevans are a founding family of Barclays, yes. In any case, we asked for a week; it's only been three days. This is premature.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. No claim of significance since my initial nomination. I've reviewed the 'supporting' references to the claim that he was a co-founder - this only shows he was a member of a firm which was then "taken over by Barclay, Bevan, Tritton, Ransom, Bouverie and Co in 1894." Samuel Tarling (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- He was not merely a banker but a bank proprietor. Banks at that period were partnerships, so that each change of partnership is technically a take-over; this is before the days of joint stock banking.  I am certainly not suggesting that every bank partner was notable, but the active partners in the major London banks certainly should be.  There is a published history of Barclays Bank, so that the facts should be verifiable.  The problem with the article is that it is focused on a Brighton Bank, which Barclays took over, rather than on the London bank in which he and his eldest brother became partners according to another of the references cited.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The Bevan family was quite notable and so the worst case is that we'd merge this into some larger article about the family. Andrew D. (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , does that mean your !vote would actually be to merge this into a larger article? What are your opinions on Richard himself, not the entire family? Primefac (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Vague articles about entire families are discouraged because people are individuals. The move is towards articles about specific individuals and a category about said family added to each individual's page.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We have numerous pages about great families of this sort — see English families, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We're here to decide whether or not to delete the page in question, along with its history. Whether we keep the page as is or make it a section within a large article is comparatively unimportant.  The relevant policy is that we should preserve the information.  Andrew D. (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep His role as a partner in banks that eventually became Barclays is a credible claim of significance and that is well attested to by the existing sources. In addition, there are two major histories of the bank (1926 and 2008) that should provide additional information when someone gets them out of the library and A History of the Bevan Family by A.N. Gamble (Headley Brothers, 1924, 144 pages) which has also not been tapped. Finally, there are Brighton newspapers to consult if anyone has current access to the British Library 19th Century Newspapers archive as undoubtedly he would have taken a leading role in Brighton's civic life given his position. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep this nomination is patently absurd and shows a deep misunderstanding both of 19th century, business, politics, and also of Wikipedia. Yes, he inherited his money and lived as a member of the establishment.  You might not like the fact that such people existed, but you shouldn't try to "punish" him by withdrawing a Wikipedia article on him just because you don't like him.  That is the lamest most pathetic excuse for deletion that I have ever come across (and it is at the heart of another pathetic misunderstanding known as "WP:NOTINHERITED").  A Wikipedia article is neutral - it isn't an award for public service to the community. We have articles on good people, bad people and people who were just trying to live their lives honestly in a confusing society.  Le petit fromage (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gee, thanks for being CIVIL. Primefac (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2015 (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.