Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Canham

: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. Shimeru 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

=[[Arthur Canham]]=

:{{la|Arthur Canham}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Canham}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Arthur Canham}})

A Google search for Arthur Canham + Trade Commissioner (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Arthur+Canham%22+%22trade+commissioner%22) finds exactly two hits: this article and a page listing this as a new article. I am not sure this is a hoax but the notability of the subject appears to be asserted based solely on inclusion one source. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A Google search for "A Canham" + "Trade Commissioner" brings up a three additional, independent references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durhamhe (talk • contribs) 00:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note the three additional references to Arthur Canham as South African's First Trade Commissioner that have been added. Durhamhe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durhamhe (talk • contribs) 09:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, as well as the three additional references, the original first reference to the 'Southern African Dictionary of National Biography' is to a highly respected source. Durhamhe. Please note fifth independent reference - to the 'Journal of the Department of Agriculture', Union of South Africa - added. Durhamhe

  • Keep Sufficient references. [http://www.archive.org/stream/reportofproceedi00sout/reportofproceedi00sout_djvu.txt] provides verification and the position is notable. I do not think the hoax assertions are correct. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG, and as follows. Trade commissioenrs have, in the past been considered notable as sub-cabinet officials. Ghits are not helpful for a man who flourished 100 years ago. The references cited are reliable. This is not a BLP, nor a hoax. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per DGG, the link he provided doesn't contain "Arthur Canham" at any point. If that simple search is incorrect, please correct me. But all of the above searches seem to rely on DGG's assertion, of which I can't find support for. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Relisting comment. The first 2 delete !votes were posted before it was established that this person indeed exists. Further discussion is needed on the issue of notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. From DGG's source: "Mr. A. Canham, upon his appointment as Acting Trade Commissioner to the Union of South Africa in London, relinquished his duties as Secretary of the late Industries Advisory Board on the 6th August, 1918". I think he was sufficiently important to be considered notable.--Michig (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

:*Thank you for providing some explanation of that source. I'd note a few things. Of all the sources, DGG's is incorporated into the article now, and of those 4 cites that are online (1's offline) 1 is a pay-wall citation, another one's DGG's cite, two discuss an "A. Canham" and the other has a single reference to "A. CANHAM, ESQ.". In none of these is Arthur Canham discussed. Perhaps that's normal for the time, but A. may also refer to Ambassador, as I believe esquire may too. I'm not saying it's a hoax, but I would like some more discussion about the actual evidence here. I worry about piling on when the evidence ultimately is unclear. I would ask the article creator how they knew about this topic. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

::[http://www.archive.org/stream/journalofdepartm02sout/journalofdepartm02sout_djvu.txt This] refers to "Mr. Canham, Trades Commissioner for the Union". This doesn't prove that his name was Arthur but is that really such an issue? I see no reason to assume that the book cited is not valid.--Michig (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Most men present at the cited meeting of the Africa Society are referred to by initials with surname. In another archived piece about the Africa Society at http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVIII/LXX/142.pdf, Arthur Canham's full name is recorded. The tendency to refer to men by initials and surname at the relevant time is also evident in the other Web citations. The hard copy 'Southern African Dictionary of National Biography' does make clear that South Africa's first trade commissioner was Arthur Canham. References to a South African trade commissioner called A. Canham during this period can only be to the same person. Durhamhe.

  • Keep The sources seem to legitimately be pointing to this person (i.e., "Arthur"). First Light (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2010 (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.