Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Giles (South Australian Company Colonial Manager)

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Giles (South Australian Company Colonial Manager)

This is the biography of a corporate person that doesn't assert any notability other than he eventually became a colonial manager. No mention is made of what he did at the company, only a brief history of his life before then. Prod removed by author with a link to another biography. JuJube (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable Grafen (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if this was a present or recently-deceased person it would be a no-brainer speedy delete, and just being dead for quite awhile doesn't confer any additional notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, keep. This is sourced to the Australian Dictionary of Biography. He wasn't just manager of some company, but of the South Australian Company -- the British-chartered quasi-public enterprise that was charged with the settlement of South Australia (comparable to the Honourable East India Company). He probably had as much, or more, power than the Crown-appointed Governor at the time. --Dhartung | Talk 19:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article doesn't mention any of that. It is only a brief biography of his life before that, and nothing of his life as the manager of said company. JuJube (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he acted as governer or had other notable activities during his time with the company, the article completely misses that, instead saying more or less that he had a bunch of kids. There do appear to be reliable sources (such as this), so perhaps cleanup is possible, but I think having no article at all is preferable to the current one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SOFIXIT surely applies (but the information is in the article, even if its importance is not highlighted). It also turns out he was a member of the first Legislative Council of South Australia (while it remained a separate colony). That inherently passes WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Giles was appointed as the third colonial manager of the South Australian Company in January 1841. That's it. "Its importance is not highlighted" would be a severe understatement. JuJube (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, we're not really required to explain the importance of the South Australian Company in this article. It's notable, it has an article, and that's what wikilinks are for. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first, we have always accepted a full article in the Aust NB as evidence of notability, just as for the UK equivalent. second, as he was a member of the legislature, he also qualifies as notable. The AUNB links were there from the first, so this should never have been nominated. DGG (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, the article mentions none of that, simply saying he had some kids, then became president, then nothing. JuJube (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (It does say more now.) --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whatever the merits of the nomination, the article as it stands now certainly demonstrates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep thanks to improvements. Notability clearly demonstrated in several manners, including the primary criterion of multiple reliable sources, listing in the Australian Dictionary of Biography and being a member of a legislature. Perhaps the intial nominator may wish to withdraw? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per current version. Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 10:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a member of a state legislature is VERY notable. Not to forget the various RS'. Twenty Years 11:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was a parlimentarian for the district of Yatala (not Yalata as listed in the article) defeating the well-known George Alexander Anstey - well noted in newspapers of the time and books after - clearly notable - Peripitus (Talk) 12:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just being a member of the Legislative Council is sufficent notability (even if the article as currently written doesn't make his significance clear) and with the ADB reference it has sufficient references.--Grahame (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2008 (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.