Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustus William Hare (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) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Augustus William Hare
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Not notable. This fellow was the son of a WP:NN. He married one of 40 cousins of some obscure noble (but with a bio). He wrote several non-notable books. He is related to several people with bios in Wikipedia, who themselves, are barely notable.

He was sent by the non-notable widow of a non-notable knight to school. Okay, one of the schools was Oxford and he was a tutor. Along with maybe, what 40,000 alumni and several thousand other tutors? He was pastor of some church. (What was called then "a living" since the incumbent could do as much or as little as he liked and get a stipend from somebody. It was considered the lowest end of the upper class). A nephew whom he never knew, was named after him, and, in turn, is also barely notable!

This is the second nomination. The first was not made by me nor did I comment at the time.

Student7 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;i didn't participate in the first discussion either, but on reading it, i find the arguments put forth there convincing, and feel that nothing has changed since then to make the subject less (or more) notable. if he's good enough for the Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature, he's good enough for wp.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per ALWL. A more than adequate number of significant sources was produced at the last AfD; I don't understand this nomination. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;a pretty minor historical figure, but there's enough secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Citation added. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per RJHall. Well-attested if now forgotten, but notability is forever. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If he was notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edward321. I am considering writing about him in Swedish too. Fernbom2 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because this is an encyclopedia. If the nominator doesn't understand that rationale then maybe it's time to get another hobby. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2011 (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.