Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Arbuthnot (artillery officer)


 * 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. If someone wants to userfy it let me know and I'll send you the information in here.-- Wizardman 03:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

William Arbuthnot (artillery officer)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The greatest achievement of this person was to achieve the rank of General 69 years (sic) after being commissioned as an officer. A nn tag has been previously removed on the grounds that simply being a general is notible. I can understand promotion in recognition of achievement but not longevity. I feel that, if the information in the article is true, it would be more widely referenced - maybe in the Guiness Book of Records. Also given the timespan of his military career I would have expected him to have some involvement in something/ anything. Aatomic1 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable by virtue of the number of men under his command. Nevertheless could use expansion. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How many men were under his command? It is not stated, and hence subject to verification, in the article. Aatomic1 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Userify until a claim to notability is made. We are not here to reproduce the Army List - although this does seem to have been a "man of peace, except in his domestic life". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability demonstrated. Accomplishment != notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article makes no assertion of notability, other than the fact that he was a general in the British Army 69 years (?) after he was commissioned as a second lieutenant. He is not notable merely by his existence, nor by his military rank.  Did he actually do anything of note during his long career?  -- ALoan (Talk) 10:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- notable army officer in the British Army Astrotrain 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not listed in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,but several of his brothers are included there, & have articles here. No articles indexed in Historical Abstracts, No independent sources for notability. I regard the family's memoirs for this purpose as not establishing N, for they will include every last member of the family indiscrimately. They would be OK for bio detail if the subject were notable. DGG 19:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I searched Google Books but found nothing helpful. Lack of notability is a concern mostly because it will be hard to find any sources. Also it will be hard to make any connections between this article and other WP articles. Should not keep this one for merely genealogical reasons. EdJohnston 02:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (or send to User) until it can be demonstrated that we should care. The only notable element is that he spent so much time in the armed services, yet did nothing of note. And that makes kittens cry. - Tiswas (t) 14:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (I think?) or userfy looks incredible anyway. He was a officer in 1804 (so the youngest he'd have been was 14 - and born 1790 or probably earlier) - he was then promoted to full General in 1873 - when he was 83 at the youngest. Now, if that's true, then he would be remarkable - and probably worth keeping. But we'd need very good sources which we don't seem to have  -Docg 09:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The sources of the dates are the Army Lists. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want us to keep the article based on the valuable information found in the Army Lists, does that mean you have laid eyes on the lists yourself? If so, can you please include a direct quote from such a list in the article?  A reference consisting of 'Hart's Army Lists' does not cut much ice. Even the legendary DGG has voted against keeping this article, which should tell you something.  EdJohnston 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I went to National Archives, Kew and looked at the Army Lists and noted the dates. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 21:44, 17 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.