Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Smith (merchant)


 * 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. JForget 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert Smith (merchant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No obvious notability. Purely genealogical interest only. Emeraude (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * no previous notability might otherwise be a cause for celebration of a new find!? There is more to find about this man, who was a significant

London merchant around 1720, when he was one of the leaders of the re-form of the Sun Life Office, of great importance to London and Britain as a whole. I would have thought in these days of inverse snobbery a lesser figure like Robert Smith, ie not a king or earl might attract praise not deletion from something supposedly democratic, plebean, as Wikipedia. It's a bit late to claim Wikipedia as a rival to the ODNB in terms of who is allowed in, surely. As I said ther's more to find on Smith, so why not add a Stub rather than thow the baby out with the bath-water.Rodolph (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Such a lesser figure that the the facts we have on him are these:
 * he was married (like most of us)
 * he had children (like most of us)
 * he wrote a will (like most of us)
 * he was a merchant (so were/are thousands/millions of others)
 * he was a shareholder in a notable company (but not the founder or a major shareholder)
 * er,.... that's it.
 * Delete as non-notable. Emeraude (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * well, no doubt more interesting than some ruined French castles?
 * he was a major shareholder.
 * more informtion is coming.
 * who are you to decide what is included?
 * there were not millions of London merchants in 1720.
 * not that many wrote wills around 1740.
 * Don't judge him by standards of 2010.
 * yes, he had children. but the records of his children are good and some were notable.Rodolph (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not make this a personal attack. I only nominate because I doubt Robert Smith's notability in Wikipedia terms. It is not for me - or you - to judge that; the whole point of this procedure is that the Wikipedia community makes the judgement. So far, the article inlcudes nothing that I can see that makes Smith notable, even in 18th century terms. The quality of the records is totally irrelevant and I have not and do not question them, but the key point is what he personally did. There is no evidence that his children were notable (and even if they were, that does not confer notability on the father!). The best we have is that Robert Smith is notable because one of his sons married a woman who was the daughter of someone who was notable. Or, his daughter married someone who was a tutor to someone notable. Hardly satisfies the criteria does it? Incidentally, I did not say there were millions of London merchants in 1720; I wrote that here have been millions of merchants - being a merchant in itself does not make one notable. Emeraude (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply. I'll try and find more context so as to make him appear more notable. Though I would'nt say 'quality of records is totally irrelevant'. For example, see present RA show of Van Gogh's letters. I'd thave thought you might appreciate the paucity of info; a bit like the tantalizing remains of a rampart of a ruined fort?Rodolph (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point about the quality of records (impeccable as they are) is that they themselves do not confer notability. Emeraude (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely non-notable. I really don't get the point of this article. Most of it consists of naming his children and describing how much they inherited from him. The most notable thing he did apparently (aside from fathering children) is to own 1% of an insurance company. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * so what if he was'nt that notable? Why are you so destructive? What or how does it cost Wikipedia to store this information? It is not as if Wikipedia is an actual book that would be clogged up and made heavy by third rate non-notables. My piece on Robert Smith just sits there quietly in cyber-space bothering no one who does'nt want to read about him. (And it's not as if it is factually wrong). And as I've said he's only about two lines of added findings away from being what you call notable. Your lack of tolerance is worrying.Rodolph (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has to have standards if it is continue to be an international encyclopedia - rather than a free bulletin board where anybody can post anything. If it became that, its usefulness would be gone. The standards are arrived at by consensus among those who post here, and are "enforced" by consensus among ordinary users like me. There are other online sites that would love this kind of genealogical inforamation, and that's where it should go. --MelanieN (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * this article is social history, it is more than pure genealogy. Even if it was pure genealogy why not tolerate it? The genealogical sites are'nt free and don't work nearly as well as Wikipedia. Genealogy is about connections and topography which Wikipedia does very well. Once small cliques decide on consensus and go round cleansing Wikipedia we're getting back to 1930s central Europe or similar.Rodolph (talk) 10:47, 18 February 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.
 * Utterly ridiculous..trumped up Wiki-wankRodolph (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)