Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidney Maynard 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   keep. Kubigula (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sidney Maynard Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of WP:notability. Only claim is to be the father of someone notable. noq (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The cited British Medical Journal obituary runs to over 1200 words, and certainly amounts to significant coverage in an independent reliable source. It was published when John Maynard Smith was eight years old, so I very much doubt that the BMJ published Sidney's obituary only because he was John's father. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to John Maynard Smith. (changing to "Weak keep", see below) Admittedly it is hard to find sources on someone from the 19th century, but Google Books should have turned up at least something significant if he was notable. Instead it turns up passing mentions. The obituary is the only thing to be found, and elaborate obituaries such as this appear to have been routine in the BMJ the early 20th century. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't really see the need to defend this but there you are.  Firstly, I find it evidence that the person who nominated this for deletion in the first place had not read the reference provided.  Anyway, he meets Notability_(people) #1 The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor (sic), twice, having received both a knighthood, specifically the Knight of Justice or Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem, and a Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath.  He was also chief surgeon at St Mary's Hospital, which is a pretty important position, and also Grand Deacon of the United Grand Lodge of England, i.e. a significant position within a national organisation. Phil is quite right that the Doctors may seem to work miracles occasionally but even they can't see into the future.  The idea that they publish the biography of someone because they were the father of an 8 year old boy, with an interest in amateur natural history, and quite good at maths, and still being prepared for the Eton 11+ is prepostrous.  Sidney is also commenting that he was the father of John, but that John .  Additionally, we're going into speculation a little bit here but, his death at only 52, at the peak of his career, prevented further recognition.  Merging this to John Maynard Smith is neither necessary nor is it a good idea.  If one is reading about John, we need to know about John, not the details of his father's extensive career both military and civilian; only maybe that his father was a surgeon, died when he was very young, and was very busy with little time for family life.  The BMJ as a source is OK, it sits with both the records as found in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes.  All this should be obvious if you read the source. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (Note: Barney the barney barney is the author of the article in question. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, I do not see how having a "knighthood" is notable. --UnQuébécois (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not very surprising. You don't seem to understand much at all really.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should view WP:PA--UnQuébécois (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how you can basically admit you don't know anything and then complain when I agree with you. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are enough factors, taken together, to indicate notability to me. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Head of service at a major hospital has normally been considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would need to see some of these things you are talking about, Barney. I guess the knighthood is mentioned, and is referenced in the depths of the obituary if that's what "created C.B." means. (Neither the article nor the obit made a point of these awards; you have now modified the article to make it clearer.) However, I have seen differing opinions at AfD about how notable a low-level knighthood makes you. An American like me is not qualified to judge, but I know there are a lot of levels of knighthood and some of them seem to be handed out like candy. "Companion of the bath" appears to be the lowest level of that order, and according to this there are almost 2000 Companions at any given time. However, that might still make him notable, particularly if additional sources can be found besides the one BMJ obituary. I am willing to reconsider my opinion. You suggest that there are additional records available besides the BMJ obituary, in the London and Edinburgh gazettes; those would certainly add to his notability (under the Multiple Sources rule) if you can give us more information about them. --MelanieN (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Created C.B." means that he was made "Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath", which is not a knighthood. His knighthood was different, namely the "Knight of Justice or Grace of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem".  Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are admittedly few RS, but the Gazetted information, the full obituary and the confirmation of the key details in articles about his son make it clear that Sidney was a notably distinguished doctor, attracting notice for his exceptional hospital dealing with appalling numbers of seriously wounded soldiers with battle injuries from Passchendaele, and then becoming head of St Mary's, Paddington (one of the world's most famous hospitals). His CB was not a mere formality; it should be explained for non-Brits that while "of the Bath" sounds humble and domestic, the point was that it was (centuries before) close to the king, hence highly honoured. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, even I am aware that the Bath is a highly prestigious order - almost comparable to the Garter, wouldn't you say? - but I'm not convinced that "companion" is a notable level within that order. As a "knight" of the Venerable Order of St. John (which is still not mentioned in the article) he can't call himself Sir Sidney, and the Croix du Guerre seems to be awarded to entire units as well as individuals, so I am still left in doubt as to how significant these achievements are in establishing notability. I wish I could see these Gazette references that several of you have mentioned, but at this point I have only seen a single source, namely the BMJ obit. Don't we need multiple sources? One more question: you indicate he was "head" of St. Mary's Hospital. Is "senior surgeon" the same thing as "head"? I thought it meant head of the department of surgery. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a PDF from The London Gazette Issue 29848 published on the 5 December 1916, Page 3 of 78, showing the knighthood granted on 1 December 1916. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am now leaning toward Weak keep based on additional sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable per Notability_(people) and with sufficient information in reliable sources to write a decent size article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of Notability, could possibly be included with John Maynard Smith. --UnQuébécois (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would help to hear why you think Notability_(people), point no.1, does not apply? Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Significant, as in important; of consequence. No significant award or honour is in question. Knighthoods in the Commonwealth are like honorary college degrees in the US.--UnQuébécois (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You don't think a knighthood and a CB are significant honours.  Well, we shall see whether that is the consensus.  FWIW, I think that they are, and that's why I !voted Keep.  Oh, and I think the comparison with honorary degrees is invalid.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The CB is a clear pass of WP:ANYBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article's references demonstrate sufficient notability per WP:BIO.  Deli nk (talk)


 * 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.