Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Melville Smith


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Robert Melville Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced biography of a former deputy minister of a government department. "Deputy minister" is a civil service role, not a "cabinet member in the legislature" role, so it could get him an article if he could be shown to have enough reliable source coverage about him to clear WP:GNG, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that guarantees him an article just because he existed -- but the only source here is a list of the past deputy ministers on the government department's own self-published website, which is not a notability-supporting source for its own staff as it's not independent of them. As always, people clear our notability standards by having media do journalism about them, not just by being named on their own employer's website. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. A deputy minister is clearly notable enough for an article. Appears to have been the senior civil servant in the department. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, a deputy minister is not automatically notable in the absence of any reliable source coverage about him — no matter how senior he was, he still does not get an automatic notability freebie just because the ministry's own self-published website about itself offers technical verification that he existed, and is not notable until media start covering him in that context. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion clearly differs. And you're not going to get much media about someone who held office in the 1930s and 1940s! Today someone in his position in a developed country would be all over the internet. Hardly then. I have no idea why you keep banging on about the website being "self-published". So what? Official websites are reliable sources for information. Nobody is saying that his inclusion on it is relevant for notability purposes. It merely confirms (reliably!) that he held a position that common sense would dictate is senior enough to grant notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a requirement that article sources be online, or that the media coverage be recent enough to find in a Google News search — news archiving databases very easily show whether media coverage from his own time existed or not, so people are not exempted from having to pass GNG just because the notability claim is old enough to not find current coverage. And the reason I keep "banging on" about the website being "self-published" is that I'm correct about how notability works on Wikipedia: people are not handed an automatic notability freebie that would exempt them from having to have any coverage in reliable sources that are independent of them just because their names happen to appear on the websites of their own employers. The role is not so "inherently" notable that the need to have an article about him would override the inability to source it to more than just one piece of technical verification that he existed. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You miss my point. Internet sources for current figures are always going to be more widespread than print sources for historical figures because it's much easier to write something on the internet than publish it on paper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Weak keep -- An official source from a western government ought to be treated as RS, but all it does is to name him as deputy minister. That is likely to be true, but does not fully source the article.  I do not know, but even if he was the head civil servant in a provincial department of state, I would have thought he was notable.  The problem is finding sources is probably that many will call him R.M. Smith or Robert Smith, which are such common names that searches will be swamped with false positives.  Is there a Canadian Dictionary of Biography or an on-line archive of Canadian newspapers to provide sources?  However the lack of sources is not a ground for deletion, where there is no clear evidence that the content is likely to be false.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't keep unsourceable articles just because the content is "unlikely" to be false, or even just because other sources might exist that nobody has actually found — the notability test is not passed just by speculating that media coverage might have existed, it's passed by showing that media coverage did exist. And the commonness of his name doesn't exempt people from having to actually find sources, either — all you have to do to manage the signal to noise ratio is search "[Robert / R.M. / Robert Melville] Smith Department of Highways" instead of just his name in isolation, because by definition any coverage which helps to make him notable for that role would have to mention that role. I've already checked the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, and I've already checked archives of Canadian newspapers — but he isn't in the DoCB at all, and in the newspapers literally the only thing I was able to find is a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that wasn't otherwise about him, at a time when he wasn't even the deputy minister but merely a staff engineer. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable, especially if they have had otherwise notable careers." - I agree that with a WP:V fail that would not be sufficient, however a google book search on the full name + Ontario does have a number of hits, including - this on an award he received - which does allow us to verify the contents of the present article. I would assume additional sources exist, yet the name does make searching here difficult. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - as creator. While I agree that normally this role wouldn't merit an article, this man invented the North American freeway. The article could be fleshed out more, but that's not a reason for deleting. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 19:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no. He didn't.  Good faith on article creator's part, but the source is mistaken,   "first" claims are often mistaken.  Take a look at Controlled-access highway.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, he did, and I have three books that attribute it to him. From Controlled-access highway (which admittedly I had a large part in): "In Canada, the first precursor with semi-controlled access was The Middle Road between Hamilton and Toronto, which featured a median divider between opposing traffic flow, as well as the nations first cloverleaf interchange. This highway developed into the Queen Elizabeth Way, which featured a cloverleaf and trumpet interchange when it opened in 1937, and until the Second World War, boasted the longest illuminated stretch of roadway built.[13] A decade later, the first section of Highway 401 was opened, based on earlier designs. It has since gone on to become the busiest highway in the world." - Now look at QEW or Highway 401 and repeat that statement on 2 featured articles about how he didn't bring the concept from Germany to North America. Admittedly, CAH doesn't mention him. I suggest reading The Middle Road. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 21:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete First, while deputy ministers can be notable, deputy ministers are not automatically notable under WP:NPOL but must pass WP:GNG. Second, having reviewed all of the sources, this fails WP:GNG. I've done a Google Books search, a Newspapers.com search, and a couple other searches and very little of the coverage of him is significant. There is a book showing he did win an award for the development of Canada, but it's scarcely significant coverage. Of the sources in the article, one just names him as the deputy minister, and the other is the source that lists the medal which Icewhiz helpfully added above. I understand a WP:NEXIST argument in a historical context, but he's apparently not listed in this book at all (could this be an OCR issue?) though he is apparently mentioned in this book  (, do you know if Boston Mills Press is a reliable publisher?), and newspapers.com brings up very little (perhaps its Canadian coverage isn't decent?). SportingFlyer  talk  02:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got access to the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail going back to the 1890s, I can see if I can turn up something from the 30s. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment  Floydian , if you have three books that describe his role in building the first North American freeway, could you add those references, and perhaps more information about it, to the article? The information about him receiving the Julian C. Smith Medal from the Engineering Institute of Canada for “Achievement in the Development of Canada” could be added too. I would not expect to find civil servants mentioned at great length in newspapers - it's usually the minister who takes credit for things, and gets press coverage on trips. But a later study of the work of a government department could show how significant a role the deputy minister played. It would be good to see those references, which might well prove his notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been finding articles, but mostly press releases (the deputy tended to be the public speaker). Books I've only got "Footpaths to Freeways" and "QEW - Canada's First Superhighway", both deemed reliable on several FA's. The newspapers are hard to search in the 30's, given he is "R. M. Smith", "Robert M. Smith", "R.M. Smith", "Robert Melville Smith", "Robert Mellville Smith", etc. depending on the writer. However, the medal should be easier to find. I'll start combing. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete extraordinary claims require adequate sourcing, and the sourcing here does not support assertions about Smith's key role as a central figure in transportation development.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found and added references to this article. My understanding is that notability is meant to be determined on the existence of sources, not their inclusion in the article. However, there are now more references, as well as more information. I believe that he meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the new sources I'm a bit confused - is the R. Melville Smith company, which worked out in Dawson during the mid-1940's, related to the person, who worked a government job and retired to Toronto out of ill health in 1943? There is another source saying the company was based out of Toronto . Which are the best three sources which definitively show notability? SportingFlyer  talk  12:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * * Answer The 1943 Edmonton Journal article and the book The Alaska Highway in World War II: The U.S. Army of Occupation in Canada's Northwest (p 55) are two of the sources that state that the R. Melville Smith company was run by the deputy minister of highways. (I guess things were different then - that would be a major conflict of interest for a civil servant now!) I think the Engineering Journal citation for the prize is one of the best sources that show notability. (I'm aware that you have already seen this, though.) I do not have access to the two books, From Footpaths to Freeways and QEW – Canada's First Superhighway, which  Floydian  has, and has said state that Robert Melville Smith was the originator of the divided highway concept. I have posted on Floydian's talk page asking for the exact reference. (PS: You noted above that From Footpaths to Freeways on google shows no results for Robert Melville Smith. I think this may be because some pages are blanked out and not visible to the search - at least, if Floydian is right that he is in the book, it's the only explanation I can think of.) Hope that's some help. (And if this article isn't deleted, help editing it to clear up confusion would be very welcome!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Also found this which provides some extra details. RM Smith didn't originate it, he brought the Autobahn concept after visiting Germany back to Ontario, and applied it to build the QEW, which is debatably the first intercity divided highway in North America (though the Pennsylvania Turnpike tends to share that honour). The article should certainly clarify that moving forward. I'll dig out that book and find the page number after work RebeccaGreen, although you may be able to find it in The Middle Road article. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 13:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * * Sorry, I meant originate in Canada, though I realise that's not really originating! That's a useful source for the Canada Culvert Co. I did look at the Middle Road and QEW articles for page numbers, but I don't think I found them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After scanning through FtF, it appears it doesn't mention it. I'm hoping someone at the resource lab might be able to get access to this book which even includes conversations between Smith and McQuesten. The award was presented to him in 1942 according to the source provided by Icewiz . Gonna keep digging. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 15:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked through all the new sources in the article and I'm still not convinced WP:GNG is satisfied. The Edmonton and Winnipeg articles barely mention him if at all and rather discuss his company of the same name, the engineering award is relatively brief coverage, I don't think ancestry.com is an RS and I know findagrave.com is definitely not a WP:RS. The only source actually on him is the engineering award. I was planning on withdrawing my delete vote since the article has been improved but there's still a lot of problems with the article including WP:SYNTH about the first expressway and about his involvement with his company (he's only mentioned once in the sources as being president, and there it's that he's recovering from a bout of ill health in Florida, not about his management.) I'm also not sure directly quoting the citation in the article isn't a copyright violation. I appreciate the effort in trying to get this over the line, though, and if you find more directly on his life please let me know. SportingFlyer  talk  12:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I have revised the article to remove the book that doesn't mention him, and include the one that does. I also am not sure whether Smith meets WP:GNG, as it seems to me that the small part of the new source I can see on Google books suggests that it was the minister who told Smith and others to design a divided highway, so the credit for that would not go to Smith. The Ancestry and Findagrave references are included only so that facts can be verified, not to contribute to establishing notability. There are definitely two sources that state that Smith was the head of R. Melville Smith Co, but that may not help notability anyway. I can't see how quoting a citation as a quote, with a reference, can be a copyright violation, but Wikipedia has its own rules on many things that I don't yet know or understand. I don't know if I'll be able to find more sources, or if it's worth the effort, if the article may be deleted. I think Smith spent some time in China or Hong Kong, too, but again, with snippet views it's hard to be sure, and would probably not add anything re notability anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope that at least this AfD continue to be extended as long as we are digging up these sources. The article began with two and now we've found nearly a dozen. At the very least the information we find will be worth merging into Thomas McQuesten, and so I would encourage a Merge or soft delete (redirect) in the end. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:59, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with leaving this open, or draftifying it if more time is needed to definitively establish notability. There's a lot of good information that has been added to the article that I think should be included somewhere, but there's no good single merge candidate since it's pretty disparate information. I just don't know if this particular individual passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  23:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Drafting works as well. I'll have a laptop with a usable keyboard tonight so I can start doing work over the weekend. As for suitable candidates, Thomas McQueston and any of the articles pertaining to the freeway developments (Highways in Canada, Highways in Ontario, 400-series highways, QEW, Middle Road, Highway 401, etc. all have little bits dedicated to this man, so each has a potential for some expansion with these sources. I've also made a request at the Resource Exchange and Canadian Wikipedians Noticeboard for someone to try and get a few pages from the Thomas McQuesten biography that should help. The book is available in Hamilton and at the Toronto Reference Library, but both are pretty far from me. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 16:20, 23 November 2018 (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.