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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tupper (physician)[edit]

Martin Tupper (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Proposing deletion under WP:N failure. Subject is noted in sources mainly for:

• being the father of Martin Farquhar Tupper and marrying into a family with notable people (WP:BIOFAMILY).
• for having notable upper-class patients (WP:INVALIDBIO).
• for having been offered a Baronetcy twice (both times refused). This itself indicates that perhaps the subject was notable at the time, but there doesn't seem to be any information out there to back that up, other than him being a well-regarded doctor. At least one of those times it sounds like he was a backup choice: "Dr Tupper had twice refused a baronetcy. In 1817 he had been offered by his friend Lord Liverpool the reversion of a baronetcy refused by his brother, Peter Carey Tupper (who had distinguished himself as British consul at Valencia and Barcelona). This he declined because he was the junior partner in his medical firm and did not wish to provoke jealousies among his seniors. In 1829 the Duke of Wellington renewed the offer in regard to Dr Tupper's own services, which had by then placed him at the head of his profession. Again the honour was refused, apparently because the doctor doubted whether the family fortune was sufficient to sustain it, and felt that the arrangement might be detrimental to his four younger sons." Hudson (1949), p. 53
• for being a member of significant societies: but Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a biography of everyone who was ever an FRS or FGS.

Currently the article sources are mainly primary or relate to his son, in which Dr Tupper is only mentioned in passing. His son's main biography and autobiography don't contain anything that indicates Dr Tupper was particularly notable. It doesn't help that his famous son is also called Martin, but I haven't managed to find anything else.

References[edit]

Hudson, Derek (1949). Martin Tupper: His Rise and Fall. London: Constable. p. 53. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment His son wrote about him [1], not sure how that affects notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that's the autobiography I mentioned, there are only passing references in there from what I've seen. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Fellow of the Royal Society clearly qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a biography of everyone who was ever an FRS or FGS. No, but it probably eventually will have (being as Wikipedia is a work in progress). I don't recall any FRS ever being deleted at AfD. It's the most prestigious learned society in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for reviewing this submission. Being an FRS certainly counts as an honour, but as per those guidelines, it doesn't guarantee that the person actually is notable. I think the lack of any other sources speaks to a lack of notability, and that being an FRS is not in itself notable.

  His page on the Royal Society doesn't show anything: no associated archives, activity, or sources. Even his nomination doesn't name anything:

  Martin Tupper Esqre FGS residing at No5 New Burlington Street, a gentleman much attached to Science, and particularly to Chemical Science, being desirous of becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society, we the undersigned do, from our personal Knowledge, believe him to be highly worthy of that Honor

  Garnet-Septagon (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 13:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fellow of the Royal Society? He's in... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, FRS is enough on its own, but one has to remember that in the 18th C, those who were developing science were a small and intimate circle, of which this gentleman is an acknowledged member, accepted into a very select group by his peers who were laying the foundations of modern knowledge.[2] He wasn't Humphry Davy, but it is quite correct that we should record who he was, as secondary sources have done. Elemimele (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2023 (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.