Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bliss (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Bliss
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Anthony Bliss was an eighteenth century clergyman whose notability has not been established. The article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2019 and the discussion was closed as keep on 18 April 2019, but I am renominating for three reasons.
 * Seven references were added but there was no discussion of whether they meet WP:GNG.
 * When nominated the article was about an Anthony Bliss who died in 1815, however all of the evidence for notability added appears to relate to another Anthony Bliss, the subject's father. I have rearranged the article to separate the information about the two men.
 * The discussion was closed 18 hours early.

I therefore suggest that a new discussion is needed to establish whether either Anthony Bliss is notable. I believe that the references do not establish significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Alumni Oxoniensis refers to both men. It is a list of Oxford students so it does not establish notability. The older man had MA (1719) and DD (1733) degrees and the younger had a BA degree (1751) and was the son of Dr Anthony Bliss of Portsmouth. It is independent but does not provide significant coverage.
 * God in human thought, an 1874 book, has a brief reference to a book by Dr (the older) Anthony Bliss. It is independent but does not provide significant coverage.


 * The remaining five references are links to works or listings of works by Anthony Bliss MA or DD (the older), Vicar of Portsmouth. They are primary sources and not independent.

Editors involved in the discussion were (proposer),, , , ,  (non admin closer). I spoke to the closer and an admin,, about how to proceed. TSventon (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep--I rearranged the page in chronological order, with the father being first. There are occasional bio pages on Wikipedia that refer to both a man and his wife. It would not be too much of a stretch to have a father and son page referring to both of them. I am of the opinion that "God in human thought" discusses the book sufficiently to be considered significant coverage, especially given that book reviews of that era had to be shorter due to cost. I am of the opinion that the father is notable on his own, as he is an opposition figure to Thomas Chubb. I included him on the Deism sidebar, along with Thomas Chubb. Because the son has the same name, it is prudent to keep some mention of him with birthdate, deathdate, positions, and location so that people who are looking for information about the father are aware of the differences between the father and the son. Lastly, I am of the opinion that the son himself alone is not notable. I am not in favor of splitting this into two articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep sourcing suffices to support the notability of this father/son pair of old time clergymen. gBooks search here: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep His workers are notable enough to have been copied and distributed by google books. Hardyplants (talk)
 * Keep but focus article on the father. Son seems somewhat less noteworthy. Content can remain essentially the same, just change first line and son’s header. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG. --  Dane talk  02:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment (as nominator) I think there are now enough references to keep the article as it is now a (90%) new article on Anthony Bliss (father), rather than an eleven year old stub about Anthony Bliss (son). As the subject was active in the eighteenth century, there will be potential sources which are not available on line. The article should be rearranged to cover Anthony Bliss (father) and include a paragraph on his son, as suggested by Hyperbolick. Query to closing admin: the subject of the article has changed from Anthony Bliss the son (as created) to Anthony Bliss the father (last week) to both men (this week), however its wikidata item has the date of death and Clergy of the Church of England database ID of Anthony Bliss (son): is this a problem and what, if anything, needs to be done about it?TSventon (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep in its present structure. The father seems notable as a theologian campaigning against the then popular theological view of the deists.  The son is probably NN, but can remain as being the other's son.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2019 (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.