# Talk:Carl Hambro

Delete. 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. A few words could reasonably be added to his mention in his father's article, but to say 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) 12:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Having an entry on this guy for absolutely no other reason than the fact that he was mentioned in one of the big Norwegian encyclopedias, and stuffing it full of references to non-notable information (e.g. he was the brother and nephew of people without their own entries, he worked a few years here and there, he was buried in such-and-such a place, and basically anything the promoters of the Norwegian brand on Wikipedia can find any kind of written source for), tends to make a laughing-stock of Wikipedia. He was a non-notable member of an influential family, who died a quarter of a century ago, and who is not remembered, other than by those who knew him personally, outside of the said encyclopedia. Having this article is utterly ridiculous. Even the title is ridiculous, calling him a "philologist" as if he did notable work as a philologist, when in fact all it basically refers to is that he got a university degree in that subject. What is the point of this kind of article?Mountainousgoat (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to start a RM for this, as I think it is pretty uncontroversial, but I suggest that this article be moved to Carl Hambro. The only cited sources who use his full name are the encyclopedias and other reference works (depends on what you'd call works like Pressefolk and Norges filologer og realister). I haven't checked the university yearbook Studenterne fra 1932, but that source is also rather encyclopedic in its nature, and such types of publications usually mention the full names of people, even if they are rarely used. The obituarists and the literary critics only use 'Carl Hambro'. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 20:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be here. I agree with MountainousGoat above. This person was utterly non-notable. He went to university, he got a degree, he did some jobs, he got some posts and book contracts because of his family connections, and he wrote a few forgotten books. The main reason the article was ever written is because he was born into a rich and influential family, the Norwegian branch of the Hambros.
People seem to have collected any old material they could find, e.g. "On his date of birth, 7 June 1914, his father, for whom he was named, made a speech at the Jubilee Exhibition commemorating the 1814 constitution in the Frogner Park." Why on earth is that suitable for mention in an encyclopedia? It isn't. Similarly - he worked as a diplomat for a time. So why is that notable, unless he achieved something of note in that capacity? He didn't.
He got a job working for the Kingdom of Norway in France, in which he did nothing of any note. Since the job was pretty much a non-job, he didn't spend much time promoting Norwegian culture, which few people would be interested in in France, but instead read some local culture. Sounds as though he was pleased to be out of Norway. Then when he came back to Norway, he was able to refer to French culture in a way that made him of 'social' interest to a few dozen people of equal social rank. In the capital of a country with a tiny and not very internationalised population, they thought the fact that he'd spent time in France was exotic and gave him a couple of book contracts. He then wrote some forgotten books. Big deal. Did they make back the advances he was paid? I don't know. Probably not. But none of this is suitable for Wikipedia. The bottom line is that he didn't do anything notable.
Look at the "Personal Life" section. Why is any of that of any notability whatsoever? If we were talking about Jacques Cousteau or Dwight Eisenhower, or anybody who is known for actually achieving a lot, and about whom there is a considerable secondary literature, it might be. But that isn't the case here. This entire article is a ridiculous attempt to take a couple of entries in mid-20th century local Norwegian directories, and forgotten book reviews, and inflate them into a long article in a global encyclopedia using waffle and any information that anyone can find, as if the person was of great importance to anyone apart from those who knew him personally. (And most of the people who did know him personally encountered him when he was a school-teacher, and remember that he was so deaf he couldn't do the job properly.)
The bits and pieces that this article uses as sources have probably never been read by anyone in the past 30 years, except by people who sought out whatever they could find in order to make this article look like a serious article. That is intellectually utterly dishonest. They might technically be secondary sources, but they aren't secondary sources in the sense that that term should be understood in the context of writing encyclopedia articles. They don't carry any information or opinions that would be considered notable by anyone (or would have been considered notable in the past 25 years), except by people who are trying to promote Norway by writing articles in Wikipedia on anything they can find.
Building a narrative out of such sources might be OK if someone was writing a biography, but no-one would get a contract for a biography of such a non-notable person. There would be no market for it. It is not OK for a global English-language encyclopedia article.
His books probably only ever got about 2 or 3 reviews each, but it seems that everything that was ever written in such a review has been carefully paraphrased and sourced here. That shouldn't be what Wikipedia or any encyclopedia is for. I mean how else can one interpret a sentence such as "The first of them was favourably reviewed by Brikt Jensen in Verdens Gang, who called it 'a declaration of love for Oslo';[28] reviewing for the same newspaper, Ragnhild Lorentzen gave the next novel a laudatory review, commending Hambro for having taken an important task upon his shoulders, whilst also criticising him for blurring the line between adolescence and adulthood"? That's a reference to reviews published 50 years ago!!! It's obvious that anyone called 'Hambro' who gets a book contract in Norway is going to get it reviewed. The truth is that almost everyone who didn't know this person personally has forgotten him. Delete this article. Mildandeasy (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Eisfbnore's contribution above supports my case. Obituarists and book reviewers called him "Carl Hambro". Yes - and they are the only people who can be cited to source this name! Practically nobody has referred to him in print since shortly after he died 30 years ago, other than maybe someone has written something about his right-wing politician father and mentioned that the said politician had some sons. The fact that practically nobody has referred to him in print in the last 30 years for anything he achieved is sufficient to make him non-notable. Therefore delete the article.Mildandeasy (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw this argument stated above, and it seems quite persuasive unless it can be countered somehow.