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. While the keep advocates pointed out that things like Kennedy family, Kapoor family, etc have a history as a family, the key point is that those articles have a prose body which summarises the activities and evolutions of the family through history, while this article is not, as pointed out by the nominator. Of course, a prodified version created in future with the relevant details of the family's evolution, will provide something useful that a category alone, eg one for a fmaily or dynasty, would not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnot family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

We have a long tradition of not doing genealogical articles. This article is simply a list of articles created by one Arbuthnot about his ancestors. Many of the articles included are of dubious notability anyway. Further we already have Category:Arbuthnot family linking them all.--Doc^g 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't even come close to meriting its own article, even though there are numerous articles on political families (see Kennedy family, Taft family, etc.)Blueboy96 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the family has plenty of notable members, so it's notable to have its own article with the family history. But currently it's just a list of its members, which isn't very helpful, considering the existence of the category for such things. bogdan 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:per nomination Giano 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Ancestry.com would be a better venue for the listing of all one's ancestors and sisters and cousins and aunts. At least dfrom reading it I know that the name is pronounced far from the way I would have thought, apparently "ah-BUTH-n't" rather than "ARR-buth-not." Wonder if the UK pronunciation has survived on this side of the pond. In any event, the category seems sufficient to link the family members who are notable to have articles for reasons besides simply being a member of the family. Edison 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. In the UK, the emphasis is on the second syllable, the third syllable being a very short "nert". In North America, the emphasis is often on the first syllable, the third syllable being pronounced "not". The descendants of James Lycurgus Arbuthnot pronounce the name "Arbernot" which is not otherwise heard. (Arbuthnot has a different value from Arbernot under the soundex system). - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site Pete.Hurd 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far more notable family articles have been axed. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are articles on other prominent families that act as disambiguation pages just like this. This is not genealogy at all. Its a disambiguation page. Genealogy would be me writing about my grandmother. This is history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person who created this article is presumably Kittybrewster, an Arbuthnot who wrote almost all (if not all) Arbuthnot articles. Phony Saint 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. Many - not all. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use this article as a merge target: "Wikipedia-is-not-for-genealogy" seems to be excellent advice if it is understood as "don't write about your otherwise unremarkable grandfather the Wisconsin farmer and his obscure siblings and their boat trip from Norway that was more or less identical to that of millions of others". I don't think it should apply to articles on old well-documented families that have produced several, sometimes dozens, of individually notable members over several centuries, or families that have some collective importance through major land holdings, noble titles or long-established investment banks or other businesses. There are articles on the Medici, Fugger, Rothschild family, Kennedy family, Bush family, Roosevelt family, Astor family, Du Pont family, and many others, including obviously a number of royal and lesser ruling dynasties. I think one can have an article on an ancient Scottish family that has produced a long series of peers, has held a couple of baronetcies, and includes fourteen members notable enough even for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

  Even if many of the current articles on Arbuthnots are going to be deleted, at least a couple of dozen seem likely to remain, as will the articles on the Arbuthnot viscountcy and the Arbuthnot baronetcies and the two notable businesses that have been run by Arbuthnots. A better idea than deleting all of these pages would be to merge the most basic info on most of those sort-of-semi-notable Arbuthnots and all those who are mainly genealogical links into this article, add one of those nice "family tree" templates (see Template:Familytree, exemplified in the Roosevelt family article) and make it an overview linking the actually notable members and branches to one another. That is information not easily available now. (I also think it would be reasonable to merge Viscount of Arbuthnott and Arbuthnot Baronets with this article, if space allows that.)

  The category is far less useful for this, and should probably be deleted, as should many other family categories. The basis for these categories is still genealogical, but while an article can take chronology and relationships into account in the presentation, may include sourcing and mention when exact genealogical connections are conjectures, none of this is possible with a category. Pharamond 05:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure though these people are in fact related. I beleive some merely share the same surname. If all Arbuthnots are related I wonder how many globally are aware of their good fortune. Of course though we are all descended from Adam, so in that case.....Giano 08:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge as proposed by Pharamond above. Catchpole 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Pharamond's suggestion makes sense, if these persons function in a dynastic unit. Astors and Rockefellers and Roosevelts and Kennedys are unusual in acting as a chronologically close unit. On the other hand, the various Percys, scattered across 400 years, do not. In other words, we can have an article on "Astors" because it meant something to be one. For some reason, there was a culture and purpose imparted to the group, and whoever lives now with the name is no longer acting like a part of a single organism that is "the Astors." For the family to have an entry, the family needs to have an identity and character in history. I cannot see anything like that in these various articles that have been up so far. The only common link is military service and wealth. Furthermore, as Giano says, Doctor Arbuthnot, who made a huge splash on the world (invented John Bull), isn't actually in the line kittybrewster wanted to gild. No. The articles involved are preserved here not because of a family historical identity but because they reproduced with the aim of producing the glorious contemporary heirs. Geogre 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limiting myself to the family to which both the peerage and the baronetcies appear to belong, I am assuming that the issue of social reproduction determined almost every important decision, and that already existing family connections was perhaps the most important single factor in the social success of any individual family member. When many individual members of even minor branches of such a family succeeded in various fields, I would normally assume that their genealogical network is at least a background factor that enabled them to build the platform (get an education, get their first commission, etc.) from which to start their career. Pharamond 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, it is merely the position of wealth and access to cultural resources that is at stake, and, in such a case, we do not have an article on a family, but on a position. It is not the family that is acting in such a way, but the economic and legal network crystallized into "Earl of Smedly Head" that is culturally and historically active. I would not agree to any pretense of a family being honored for its inherited wealth. I can only see a family lemma when a family is a recognizable historical entity. In British history, I would point more to the Churchills (and we have no article on that as a family, even though they produced for generations, but in a way that was not consistent) than to the scattered Arbuthnots. Geogre 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Firstly, this is a very bad faith nomination (see nominator's Talk Page). Secondly, every country has a collection of famous families containing strings of notables in a variety of contexts. In the case of small countries such as Scotland the famous families concerned are inevitable tightly knit and related. Throughout Wikipedia there are hundreds, if not thousands, of stubs and articles which are poorly sourced or not sourced at all, and a great many of no notability whatsoever. The right approach, as I see it, is where someone appears to have some credibility/notability is to search for more sources and improve an article - not wreck it out of some misplaced duty. What I would like to know is why User Kittybrewster has been singled out in this very nasty schoolboy 'I'm going to mess up your work' fashion by less than half a dozen determined editors. For those of us who came to Wikipedia thinking it was an adult forum I am shocked at the number of people whose prime task appears to be deletions and disruptions. David Lauder 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ad homium arguments, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks have no place on wikipedia. And the above is quite the most venomous piece I've encountered in a while. As for the substance of the argument - really? Please point me to the secondary source material that discusses the Arbuthnots as a family down through the ages? Show me how this family are notable as a family? Do that, and I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. But you've provided nothing to support your contention. Actually, I did search for sources to improve this article and many others in this series - and when I could find none, I nominated two for deletion. Since you obviously believe people should do their research before coming here - perhaps you'd share your research that's brought you to a keep decision? If you engage with the substance of the argument and refrain from the scurrilous juvenile attacks, you'll find me quite a reasonable debating partner - and always happy to be proved wrong.--Doc^g 15:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply:If I have said something that was untrue, I naturally apologise. From a trawl of current activities they were my conclusions. It appears to me that people sit in front of their computers and if they cannot locate something on line it does not exist. I'm afraid that the internet has not yet replaced books. Moreover, just because you have not heard of this family is surely just as relevant as to whether I too have heard/not heard of them. What is clear is that a great many of them have been prominent Scots, from (deletable) Provosts to MPs, to baronets even. Anderson's Scottish Nation gives the family in general and several mor eprominent members mentions. The DNB also has a few. It is a question of researching sources. You and another have sneered at a book by Mrs Arbuthnot, but she has quite clearly produced a very extensively researched history of this family, not dissimilar to the several books on other families written in the 75 years up to that time, notably by people like Sir William Fraser. So we have here a very good source on many of this family which is being rubbished on Wikipedia yet it is a published source available in the National Library of Scotland. It therefore fulfill's Wikpedia's requirement as credible source materiél. Why is it being dismissed? I fully agree that if there are articles on Wikipedia that have no evident notability whatsoever then delete (although I myself have no wish to take part in wanton deletions). But notability comes in all shapes and sizes and many popstars appear on Wikipedia and my personal opinion of them as notable is not printable here. David Lauder 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the Mrs Arbuthnot whose "memories" references half these pages equates to Lady Blanche Addle Giano 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not remotely true. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No of course it is not true Kitty, becuase you just altered my edit to make it untrue [1] - you can be blocked for that sort of thing so please do not do it again Giano 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to respond to Mr Lauder's rants since he is engaging in nothing but assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. You don't win arguments by imputing false motives and strawmen to your opponent. I have dismissed no source - but all sources need to be assessed - and encyclopedic articles need multiple sources.--Doc^g 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now who is showing bad faith and making an implied personal attack? Why is it that people like you are unable to accept the comments of others without instant denunciation. I based my comment on your approach from looking on your Talk Page, under "Arbuthnot (yet again)". David Lauder 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. I will be trolled no longer. You may have the last word.--Doc^g 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to briefly defend Ada Jane Arbuthnot's "Memories of the Arbuthnots", published in 1920, which can be downloaded from kittybrewster.com. It's a competent and serious attempt at a genealogy, and has a good index. It is not easy to determine the relative importance of the persons treated in her book, since the amount of coverage seems to depend on which papers happened to fall into her hands. It does not seem to be a proper work of history, and we don't know of any citations to it by historians. EdJohnston 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT the Arbuthnot family's own personal Genes Reunited. We don't have articles on familis of this level of prominence (i.e. well below the Windsors). Look at the families listed by Pharamond - would you really put the Arbuthnots (of whom most people have never heard) with these iconic dynasties? Guy (Help!) 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre. Mackensen (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As long as we have more than a handful of Arbuthnot articles, it's worthwhile to have something to serve as a disambiguation page for them. —dgies^t_c 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Em, why? Dabs are only useful if they have the same title. Anyway a dab would be at 'Arbuthnot' and simply have a list of articles with that name. By your argument we'd have a Smith family Jones family and McDonald family we have a lot of articles on them too.--Doc^g 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page for Smith: Famous people with the surname Smith --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Arbuthnot or Arbuthnot (disambiguation) would be fine. It's good to have disambig pages and this is basically just that, plus some background info. —dgies^t_c 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, and particularly as per Geogre. No notability here, and no coherence except by name and in some cases geneology DES ^(talk) 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Merge There is already a Clan Arbuthnott article dealing with this family, so either merge this with that or delete.--padraig3uk 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In view of kittybrewsters claim below that the Clan Arbuthnott is non-existant then I have changed my vote to delete on this article, and I think that Clan Arbuthnott should also be deleted.--padraig3uk 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a rather boring, not useful, family article that doesn't come up to the standards of Macdonald or Rutherford. If you want to see a wonderful article of the genre, look at Medici. Somebody just mentioned Clan Arbuthnott as a possible merge target. That one is my nominee for the worst of all the Arbuthnot articles. (Old-fashioned, stuffy, uninformative, doesn't define its terms [e.g. "lands of Arbuthnott", "of that ilk", "the chief family"], based on potted history that could well be false). Since I don't see how to vote for quality in this debate, I'm abstaining. EdJohnston 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move most of the content in Arbuthnot family to a disambiguation page located at Arbuthnot, where it may continue to provide very helpful links for searchers. Then, Merge the rump of Arbuthnot family with Clan Arbuthnott, as they are essentially synonymous. Flozu 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those who know : is Clan Arbuthnot essentially the same as Arbuthnot family?DGG 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. There is no such thing as Clan Arbuthnott, Clan being highland, family being lowland. Arbuthnott is a Lowland family. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically true. However, we narrate verifiable fictions as well as facts. Their is an entity called 'clan arburthnot' in the secondary literature - it has a tartan and a (perhaps spurious) provenance. Walter Scott's fictions are notable. However, there seems scant secondary literature discussing an Arbuthnot family as an entity. (Although granted there are a large number of very notable individuals - who do merit articles).--Doc^g 10:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It may be that there is one, large family Arbuthnot, or perhaps a couple of verifiable families and a few strays, but I see no good reason not to keep the genealogy or genealogies of those that are indeed related together somewhere, be it at Arbuthnot family, Arbuthnot families, divided into Arbuthnot family (of Dunfoo) and Arbuthnot family (of Dunbar) or some other way. I think information like that is as encyclopedic as all the minor technical data on every model of Porsche or every 19th century steam engine. (See also my reply to Geogre above.)

  As for the Clan Arbuthnott, I am much more skeptical: I am no expert on Scottish history, but as far as I know a lot of this clan stuff is a product of 19th century Scottish national romanticism and the American market for Old Country nostalgia. This is a lowland family and the article points out that the tartan was registered in 1962. This seems not even to be a Victorian construct but much more recent. That there is at least one significant Arbuthnot family is verifiable and clear from the peerage. It seems from User:Kittybrewster's website (this page), that the viscountcy and the two baronetcies belong to the same family (I am assuming that there is good evidence for these connections). If that is the case, I'm convinced a good article could be written based on some of the genealogical secondary sources, such as James Balfour Paul's The Scots Peerage, that I saw cited somewhere (in another strange case of omission, it is not even cited in the Viscount of Arbuthnott page, but it was in one of the pages on a minor Arbuthnot). But is this clan real? Would people like Robert Arbuthnot, 1st Viscount of Arbuthnott (died 1655) or John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott (died 1791) have regarded themselves as clan chiefs, or would they have been regarded as such by their contemporaries? Pharamond 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the Head of the family is recognised as such by Lord Lyon. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dgies. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kittybrewster, may I remind you of WP:COI? "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; 2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". Wouldn't it have been good practice here to consider abstaining, and if not clarify to the closing admin (and to other editors) that your !vote here is on an article about your family, in which you are listed, that 81 of the 104 edits have been by you, and that one of the two external sources listed is a website maintained by you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is simply not a disambiguation page. (Create one by all means - but after this genealogical page is gone) Aatomic1 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly not a genealogical page since (i) not everybody is related and (ii) no relationships are shown. I would be happy to merge Clan Arbuthnott into it since Arbuthnot is not a clan but is a family. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kittybrewster, if you accept that Clan Arbuthnott is non-existant why did you edit that article and add links and info to it, instead of nonimating it for deletion. --padraig3uk 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really a deletionist. I tried to change it to Arbuthnot family for reasons stated above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Your not a deletionist? Are you sure about that - what about all the articles on Irish republicans that you !voted to delete on a "i dont like it basis" despite the fact the articles were referenced with multiple non-trivial sources. You are an embarrassment and are contraticting yourself with your lies.Vintagekits 09:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Members of a family, by definition, are all related. Phony Saint 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. In this case they all recognise that they hail from the same place and acknowledge allegiance to the same head or chief. Having said which, 95% are related albeit 15th cousins. In any event they all share the same surname even though we cannot prove the relationship of a few (eg Robert Arbuthnot (auditor)). - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So out of the about 80 odd articles on the family in WP, how many of them would you say are part of or accepted as part of your family today.--padraig3uk 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the criteria for inclusion in this list: having the surname Arbuthnot or a variant, claiming to be part of the Arbuthnot family, or actually being part of the Arbuthnot family? If we can't prove a specific relationship, why are they listed here without sources? More importantly, how is the Arbuthnot family notable? Phony Saint 23:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT a directory and WP:N. The article as it stands is simply a list of family members, and amounts to little more than a simplified family tree, so fails WP:NOT. I would not object in principle to an article which substantively discussed the family's history, provided that the sources were not simply directories of gentry and family memoirs; the current article fails WP:N because the listed sources are simply two family websites. If (per WP:N) there are reliable, non-trivial and independent sources discussing the family as a whole, than an article on the family would be a clear keep. However, the only source which I am aware of giving substantive consideration to the family as a whole (rather than to individual family members) is "Memoirs of the Arbuthnots", which fails the independence test because it is written by a family member. Many of the individual family members receive mentions in Who's Who or Debrett's etc, but even if we consider those sources indepemdent and non-trivial (discussions at WT:N were a very long way from agreeing to that proposition), collating them all to create an article on a family starts to look rather like WP:NOR. But that's another day's work: there has been so much discussion of articles on this family that we should not keep the article in the hope of suitable sources appearing; if they existed, I think that we are entitled to assume that they would have surfaced by now.
  BTW, please please please could editors try to restrict this discussion to testing this article against WP policies and guidelines? The personal acrimony, allegations and counter-allegations above do nothing to assist a decision on the after of this article, and in several places this AfD is sufficiently acrimonious that editors who don't enjoy a usenet-style flame war are likely to be deterred from participating. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA please; as they say in football, play the ball not the man. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is now stupid, the Arbuthnots are not the Medici or the Hapbsburgs they are a collection of varying achievers such can be found in any other group of people with the same surname. I don't even buy the story they are all from the same place (but so what if they are anyway) people have surnames for all sorts of reasons birth, adoption or they just like the name and change it or want an alias. The Arbuthnots are no more related to each other than are all people called Higginbottom, Smith or Jones - Most of the stubs are a load of old tosh, and as for Clan Arbuthnot words fail me. This whole debate is now descending into the farcical - it just needs to be closed and the Arbuthnots deleted leaving only those that were truly notable, baronets (God knows why - but that is the rule) and MPs for the same odd reasoning. Giano 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The discussion has shown that the article is made up of too many non-notable individuals. Or perhaps more of them are notable than is apparent, but it's supposed to be apparent, notablity needs to be shown—and not shown by referencing in the circular way that's been demonstrated to be the case here, either. The article is also irredeemably incoherent, in that the individuals in it have no overarching connection with each other—they're not a family, nor connected in any other way that stands the test of logic, and the referencing for their connection is also circular (in other words it's referenced to kittybrewster's website). So there are two damning problems: the bits are non-notable, the whole is incoherent. These two simple arguments are made repeatedly and eloquently above. The angry ad hominems with which the supporters of the article meet them don't prove anything either way, I suppose. As for the suggestion to keep this central, or hub, article and to merge in content about the individuals from their individual articles, I have to say most of these stubs seem to have little or no content worth merging(see Geogre above), unless I've been very unlucky in sampling them. The few brilliant exceptions—John Arbuthnot and Harriet Arbuthnot come to mind, authored respectively by Geogre and Giano—are clearly not candidates for merging either. Incidentally, I think Category:Arbuthnot family needs deleting too. The category is even more incoherent than the family article, yoking together as it does unrelated people, roads, and paddle steamers. Please consider joining the category discussion here. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Strong Delete - genealogy spam. You really do NOT want me to start listing the Morgan family. DewiMorgan 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right Dewi no we don't - but there is another member of the family here George Bingham Arbuthnot that needs some attention. Giano 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as per BrownHairedGirl, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and add notable members to Clan Arbuthnott. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete this, but create a disambiguation page at Arbuthnot, similar to Smith and Olsen. At least one editor here claims that the clan mentioned isn't related to this family, despite the fact that both of the articles contain several of the same names. Also add a reference to the dabpage from Arbuthnott. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think most of this information can be put into the Clan Arbuthnott page or vice versa. Some of these people will likely become redlinks and will be edited out in the near future. As for the Lowland/Highland argument regarding family/clan, it should be clarified along with the difference in Arbuthnot spelling. Surely some of the people in this list are Highlanders and the Lowlanders can likewise be pointed out. Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire contain both Highland and Lowland. Perhaps some editors would prefer a heading of "Prominent Arbuthnots" rather than "Prominent members of the family." Regarding Geogre's question of dynastic function, I can say some of the people on the list did. (These being decendants of Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo in relation to banking. (Another redlink in waiting.)) It might be interesting to note here that the previously mentioned Harriet Arbuthnot was at one time being considered for non-notability and was also started by Kittybrewster. Take a look at it now. Aspenocean 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Arbuthnots/Arbuthnotts are highlanders. If the article survives I will add a section on the difference in spelling. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- a list of family members is not notable - most of them are up for deletion or have contested notability United and Free 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Almost all contestations and AfD's are by the small group of determined deletionists. I just wish people would concentrate on creative, not destructive, work. David Lauder 14:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United and free is a week old and an irish republican. Most of the articles are not up for deletion and do not have contested notability. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ````kittybrewster as you have a COI in these discussions maybe you should refain on comments about other editors.--padraig3uk 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kittbrewster, please refrain from disparaging other editors on the basis of what you believe their political affiliations to be. Discuss the article and the guidelines, not the person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but reconfigure. The family clearly has some notable members; especially given the repetition of given names, it is reasonable to have some sort of list/disamb. page clarifying those, and delineating relationships a little. The problem now is that there are too many non-notable folks in this article -- it needs to be trimmed, and refocussed on only the families more notable members. An article on the Astors would also look silly, if it listed every offspring of every minor relative. Xoloz 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.