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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Joachim Hambro (philologist)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His only claim to notability is that he was the son of C J Hambro; this is insufficient for his own article; 5 years as a journalist, a few as a university lecturer, a few as a minor diplomat - in all of which fields he was non-notable; cultural output was also minor. It is doubtful that he would be included in Store norske leksikon were it not for who his father was. He was not a notable philologist. A few words could reasonably be added to his mention in his father's article, but to say in that article that this chap got a degree in philology, worked as a university lecturer, then as a diplomat, translator, university lecturer again, and wrote a few novels, would be too much I think. Mountainousgoat (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, an entry in a paper(-turned online) encyclopedia is cited; award-winning translator. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An individual with his own entry in the second most comprehensive Norwegian-language encyclopedia (now online-only, because of the success of WP) does not automatically merit an entry in WP. This chap's work as a diplomat, university lecturer, and philologist are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Nor is winning an award sufficient. His family relation to the politician C J Hambro is certainly insufficient (WP:NOTINHERITED). But this may well have been the main reason the Store norske leksikon gave him his own article. How many other individuals does it give their own articles to who are not notable for anything other than winning the Bastian prize? List of winners is here. Many don't have their own articles either in the Leksikon or in WP. The issue comes down to whether or not his being awarded the Bastian Prize by the Norwegian Association of Literary Translators (which today has about 300 members) in 1963 makes him notable. The answer is surely no.Mountainousgoat (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the Delete since the nominator can't "vote" in the discussion he started. Geschichte (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, anyone winning the Bastian prize is among the literary establishment elite of Norway which clearly merits notability. Also his own literary production is sufficient for notability. __meco (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So each of the winners of the Bastian prize should have their own WP entry, saying where they went to university and what jobs they've done? I think that would be going way too far. By all means list them in the entry for the Bastian prize, which article incidentally doesn't even say what most of the prizewinners translated! It would not do to rush to expand Norwegian-language lists into sets of biographical articles, copying birth jobs and death info (and in the latest revision, burial info!), without much care to describe (or demonstrate) what actions and events in the person's life are really worth being recorded in WP. You can say his literary production is sufficient for notability, but where are the multiple and independent secondary sources (substantive reports or discussion) that establish this? Do you agree that he was not notable as a philologist? (In fact, did he do anything whatsoever in philology after getting his university degree? Philology - the way the term is used in English - is the diachronic study of written language. Are there any secondary sources for his philology work? Many people get university degrees.) He was certainly a member of the elite of Norway by dint of his family relations (choosing a cultural path), but this is insufficient reason to have his own article in WP. Should everyone who had a few novels published in Norway in the 1960s get their own English-language WP article? Of course, it would be possible to answer 'yes', but I would argue that WP would soon fill up with junk. Also I have just found out that when he got given the Bastian Prize by the Norwegian Association of Literary Translators in 1963, he was actually the chairman of that organisation! That suggests they did not have many other suitable candidates. As you say, he was in the establishment elite, and that was because of family connections. What he actually did in his own life was not notable in broader terms. He should be mentioned in the article on C J Hambro and the article on the Bastian Prize - that's all.Mountainousgoat (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article seems to be being expanded to include absolutely everything that supporters of its existence can find out about this chap, including who he was the grandson and uncle of, where he was buried, etc. (Why on earth should that go in?) Even if we were to accept the viewpoint that inclusion in the second most comprehensive Norwegian-language encyclopedia, and winning a Norwegian translation prize in the early 1960s from a translators' organisation of which he was chairman, indicate sufficient notability for him to have his own WP article, the inclusion of this amount of information in his article is verging on the ridiculous. All things in good proportion!
  - Please could an admin have a look at what is happening to this article. And please also can someone argue against the points I have expressed above in good faith, if they disagree with them, rather than just tipping everything they can find about the chap into the article.Mountainousgoat (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that this is also a single purpose account. Geschichte (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed it is, and I am asking that my points be considered. The entry in the other encyclopedia mentioned, and the single-event award of a prize in 1963 by a very small organisation of which he was chairman, in a small-population country, are not in themselves sufficient to demonstrate notability over and above what might justify the addition of a few words to his mention in his father's article. Nor does having a degree in philology justify being described as a philologist in the article title, when he did nothing notable as a philologist. So your contribution above does not do justice to your opinion that the article should be speedily kept. I repeat my request for a fuller engagement with the issues by those who support 'keep'. Let us all consider all points and issues on their merits. Multiple reliable secondary sources demonstrating the notability of his novels would be welcome.Mountainousgoat (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, as established among other ways through an entry in a printed, general-purpose encyclopedia. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Meco above. Lord Roem (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2012 (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.