366:
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.
382:
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
462:
Knowledge (XXG) 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
441:
so what if he was'nt that notable? Why are you so destructive? What or how does it cost
Knowledge (XXG) to store this information? It is not as if Knowledge (XXG) 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
365:
Please do not make this a personal attack. I only nominate because I doubt Robert Smith's notability in
Knowledge (XXG) terms. It is not for me - or you - to judge that; the whole point of this procedure is that the Knowledge (XXG) community makes the judgement. So far, the article inlcudes nothing
244:
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
481:
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
Knowledge (XXG). Genealogy is about connections and topography which Knowledge (XXG) does very well. Once small
245:
from something supposedly democratic, plebean, as
Knowledge (XXG). It's a bit late to claim Knowledge (XXG) 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.
420:
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.
159:
442:
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
210:
153:
114:
119:
463:
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. --
87:
82:
91:
74:
174:
141:
17:
135:
131:
533:
512:
495:
472:
455:
430:
406:
392:
375:
354:
295:
254:
225:
199:
56:
36:
238:
might otherwise be a cause for celebration of a new find!? There is more to find about this man, who was a significant
181:
78:
397:
My point about the quality of records (impeccable as they are) is that they themselves do not confer notability.
511:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
70:
62:
147:
167:
468:
426:
402:
371:
291:
195:
529:
491:
451:
388:
350:
250:
221:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
486:
and go round cleansing
Knowledge (XXG) we're getting back to 1930s central Europe or similar.
275:
he was a shareholder in a notable company (but not the founder or a major shareholder)
464:
422:
398:
367:
345:
yes, he had children. but the records of his children are good and some were notable.
287:
191:
525:
487:
447:
384:
346:
246:
217:
49:
108:
260:
Such a lesser figure that the the facts we have on him are these:
306:
well, no doubt more interesting than some ruined French castles?
505:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
272:
he was a merchant (so were/are thousands/millions of others)
190:
No obvious notability. Purely genealogical interest only.
104:
100:
96:
166:
332:
there were not millions of London merchants in 1720.
211:
180:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
515:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
205:
524:Utterly ridiculous..trumped up Wiki-wank
209:: This debate has been included in the
325:who are you to decide what is included?
383:remains of a rampart of a ruined fort?
335:not that many wrote wills around 1740.
446:. Your lack of tolerance is worrying.
338:Don't judge him by standards of 2010.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
269:he wrote a will (like most of us)
266:he had children (like most of us)
263:he was married (like most of us)
1:
534:01:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
496:10:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
473:04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
456:23:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
431:22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
407:14:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
393:14:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
376:09:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
355:22:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
296:12:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
255:00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
226:22:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
200:18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
57:00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
552:
322:more informtion is coming.
508:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
71:Robert Smith (merchant)
63:Robert Smith (merchant)
236:no previous notability
315:a major shareholder.
482:cliques decide on
278:er,.... that's it.
44:The result was
228:
214:
543:
510:
286:as non-notable.
215:
185:
184:
170:
122:
112:
94:
54:
34:
551:
550:
546:
545:
544:
542:
541:
540:
519:
513:deletion review
506:
127:
118:
85:
69:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
549:
547:
539:
538:
537:
536:
518:
517:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
434:
433:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
380:
379:
378:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
340:
339:
336:
333:
327:
326:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
299:
298:
281:
280:
279:
276:
273:
270:
267:
264:
242:
241:
240:
239:
230:
229:
188:
187:
124:
120:AfD statistics
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
548:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
520:
516:
514:
509:
503:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
474:
470:
466:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
432:
428:
424:
419:
416:
415:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
381:
377:
373:
369:
364:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
337:
334:
331:
330:
329:
328:
324:
321:
320:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
297:
293:
289:
285:
282:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
261:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
237:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
219:
212:
208:
204:
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
121:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
507:
504:
483:
443:
417:
312:
283:
243:
235:
206:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
154:free images
484:consensus
218:• Gene93k
465:MelanieN
423:MelanieN
399:Emeraude
368:Emeraude
288:Emeraude
192:Emeraude
115:View log
526:Rodolph
488:Rodolph
448:Rodolph
444:notable
385:Rodolph
347:Rodolph
247:Rodolph
160:WP refs
148:scholar
88:protect
83:history
52:JForget
418:Delete
284:Delete
132:Google
92:delete
46:delete
175:JSTOR
136:books
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
530:talk
492:talk
469:talk
452:talk
427:talk
403:talk
389:talk
372:talk
351:talk
292:talk
251:talk
222:talk
207:Note
196:talk
168:FENS
142:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
313:was
311:he
216:--
182:TWL
117:•
113:– (
532:)
494:)
471:)
454:)
429:)
421:--
405:)
391:)
374:)
353:)
294:)
253:)
224:)
213:.
198:)
162:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
528:(
490:(
467:(
450:(
425:(
401:(
387:(
370:(
349:(
290:(
249:(
220:(
194:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.