Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Hews


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Francis Hews

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. None of the sources indicate notability (either primary or self-published sources, or sources of very limited significance or reliability, like "experimental religion"). Article doesn't make clear what his claim to notability should be either. His published works haven't received attention, and are not even mentioned in the obituary in the "evangelical magazine". Looking for other sources gives some bibliographies which list his works (among thousands of others, and without further attention), and a short article in the "Bedfordshire Magazine" from 1966 about a poem he wrote. Nothing which would make him meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. Article was tagged with the "notability" template. Fram (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, i have also added Hews to the music afd list as his book, The Songs of Sion in Gospel Sound is held by around 140 libraries (maybe librarians know something that we don't?:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And numerous editions of Spoils Won in the Day of Battle since 1798 under its various titles, including modern ones. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, Hews appears in A Baptist Bibliography (well he would...:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has been expanded since nomination and clearly meets the GNG. He is notable as a religious author and autobiographer whose works are still in print 200 years later and widely held by libraries and have received critical attention. He is also notable for his account of the opposition he received to his work, the legal records of which are referenced by National Archives, and which is part of the story of non-conformism in England. His activities in Bedfordshire might seem a little parochial but the county was a centre of Baptist activity as the birth place of John Bunyan so being a preacher in chapels there is more significant than it at first appears. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction. His work is not "widely held by libraries" or "held by around 140 libraries", and his work is not "still in print" (one work has received a very limited reprint in 1972, which has not received any verifiable attention at all). "The songs" has been digitised by the British Library, and as far as I can tell all other 139 libraries only have the e-book, just like they have every book digitised by the British Library. So basically, the actual book is owned by 1 library as far as we know. So, is he notable because his works "have received critical attention"? A 5 line review of one work, and a short segment in a longer article in the Bedfordshire Magazine 150 years later, is hardly evidence of being "notable as a religious author and an autobiographer". Legal records are primary sources and give no notability either. "being a preacher in chapels there is more significant than it at first appears.": not only than it at first appears, but more significant than any significant author has realised apparently. Basically, the significant attention he has received is one short review of one work at the time of publication, and a few lines in the Bedfordshire Magazine. All that remains otherwise is unreliable or partisan sources, one copy of the book in the British Library which has been digitized, and things you believe should make him notable, but where no authoritative sources have agreed with you so far. Fram (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Correcting your correction:
 * Seven (non digital) works in the British Library.
 * Spoils and Songs of Sion is in print with Gale (but sold out awaiting new copies), most recently in a 2018 hardback edition. Here's the link there are two others too. So since first publication in 1798, Spoils has been reprinted in 1852 (part), 1967, 1972, 1982 (Bible Truth Books, may be same edition as 1972 per World Cat), 2010 by Gale (paperback) and 2018 by Gale (hardback).
 * You are wrong about these all being electronic. See here for the libraries holding the 1972 hardback edition such as BL, Trinity College Dublin, National Library of Scotland etc. Religious libraries holding it in the U.S. are stated to be Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, West Coast Baptist College. I have that edition and it is far more than a simple reprint. The publisher has added numerous photographs of baptist meeting places mentioned in the text and cross-referenced them, notes on Hews's life, and a map "The country of the Spoils" showing the place in which he worked so its clearly a work of enduring significance in its field. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Every book which has been digitized (and is PD) is "in print" from these kind of publishers, they just make a print-on-demand version (basically, they print and bind whatever you want them to). That is not "being in print", that is "being digitized and PD". The BL tries to collect every book which has been printed in the UK ever, being listed there (or in most other university libraries) is not an indication of notability, just of existence. I can't find any reliable evidence of the 1852 edition or the 1967 edition, the 1972 and 1982 are probably the same (by someone who doesn't seem to have published any other books, not some reputable scientific or historic publisher?), and the 2010 and 2018 are print-on-demand services (Gale is in itself a very respectable publisher; but the Gale ECCO series, of which this book is a part, are some 185,000 18th-century titles from the BL c.s., not some restrictive, specific selection of noteworthy books). So the book has been reprinted once, in 1972, in an edition which hasn't made any headlines (or bylines or even mentions), but is kept in a few libraries (have they bought it? Has the publisher sent it to them for free? No idea, no means to know this, but in any case not evidence of notability). Your claims that it is a notable book (and by extension author) are in direct contradiction with the extreme lack of attention they have received. Fram (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The 1852 edition was titled Zion's Casket and 1967-69 Zion's Witness as stated in the article. It only reverted to the original title for the 1972 and later editions. Even if the most recent editions are printed digitally (like many Oxford University Press books by the way), the fact remains that since 1798 the book has had at least three further printings, quite apart from the other points that indicate that the GNG is satisfied from his other works and his life. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Philafrenzy, I know the claims the article makes about the 1852 and 1967 editions, but where is the evidence that these exist?. As far as I am concerned, the book has been reprinted once, by a publisher without any history or credentials, and without that reprint getting any attention at all. Value for notability of such a reprint is nil. Fram (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Later editions are generally regarded as reliable sources for the existence of earlier editions which are usually printed in the bibliographical details, as I am sure you know and as they are in that edition. I wasn't aware of that publisher either but you will just have to believe me when I say it is a professionally produced edition with new content such as photographs and notes and a map apparently drawn specially for it. It is not a facsimile. The value of reprints for notability is not in the publisher but in the fact of the reissuing, in this case over two centuries, which indicates the continued significance of a work in its field, i.e. the history of the Baptists and non-conformism in England. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ¨*Um, no. A publication by an unknown entity (we have a name for the publisher, but zero indication that they are in any way a trustworthy source) is not a reliable source for any information, and if like here there's is zero evidence that the information is actually is correct, then we don't accept it. A reprint by an unknwon publisher and editor is not a reliable source at all for any information. Please remove all information you have added to the article and which is solely based on this reprint, as it is simply not a WP:RS. Fram (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The publisher is not "unknown", it is Woodcraft of Bedfordshire, exactly where we would expect a work about a Bedfordshire preacher to be published. There is every reason to believe the source to be reliable. Please take it to talk or the RS noticeboard if you disagree. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Woodcraft of Biggleswade is totally unknown as a publisher or as a historian. They have zero credentials in either role, and don't get quoted by any respected historians. Fram (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what you really mean is unknown to you. This book is 99% a reprinting of a 1798 work, do you argue that they have deliberately misrepresented anything? Here's the page of notes at the front. Now I look at that page again, I think it is likely that Zion's Casket and Zion's Witness are journals rather than alternative titles (British Library have The Spiritual Magazine and Zion's Casket) but that only makes the subject more notable as it means it was published in multiple media and in the case of Zion's Witness in serial form. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I mean unknown to anyone anywhere. This is not a well-known publisher, this is not a well-known historian (or literary critic, or whatever). No reliable source has ever given any attention to this publishing house, or to the person who wrote these additional pages. Please don't try to express "what I really mean", if you think I am wrong just say so but don't be passive-agressive. As you clearly don't understand what our reliable sources policy is about, I see no point in trying to explain this any further to you. Let me just give a hint: "do you argue that they have deliberately misrepresented anything? " is a strawman argument of the first grade; the crux of RS is that we dismiss sources where have no indication that they are trustworthy, reliable, known for being accurate; not that we should only dismiss source which are known to "deliberately misrepresenting" anything. The lowering of all kinds of enwiki bars in this AfD is staggering, but I didn't think you would really go to this lengths to defend such a source. Oh, and your Google link gives a 404 error, "404. That’s an error. The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know." Fram (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake, here's the link. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what are you trying to prove with it? I didn't doubt that the book contained the information you provided. But showing that page doesn't make the book any more or less reliable or trustworthy. Fram (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, great to see a couple of really experience editors duking it out at an afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets the GNG Whispyhistory (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way? Which reliable, independent sources give significant coverage of Hews? The only source which really gives some attention to Hews is his obituary, which is hardly the best source (and e.g. ignores his work as a writer completely!) Fram (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a dearth of articles on English non-conformism, and this article further illuminates this tempestuous period, certainly satisfies GNG as it stands. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * RSN discussion started at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Fram (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per our editing policy, WP:PRESERVE. The page in question seems to be coming along nicely but notice that this discussion is more than twice as big and forking per WP:LIGHTBULB.  We don't delete AfD discussions even though they are usually just of historical interest.  All that deleting the page in question would achieve would be to change its its status so that only admins like Fram could read it.  This would tend to annoy the productive contributors involved to no useful purpose. Andrew D. (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * delete Apart form what look like primary sources there is not a lot here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment He turns up in an 1800 issue of London Review, which says of Spoils won in the Name of Battle: "This delectable narrative informs us, that the author is a Baptist teacher and druggist in Dunstable, where he has got many enemies, whom he abuses by name in the most libelous language. We are in doubt to which place he ought to be sent, whether to Bridewell for correction, or to Bedlam for cure." Ah, it's in the article after all. --tronvillain (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This is a tough one. Personally, I would like the article to remain - it's interesting and imo encyclopaedic. But I can't in all conscience find a policy-based reason for retention. There's nothing in refs to assert anything other than that the book exists; that's way short of the notability guidelines. As a thought experiment, how would we feel if this were someone who died yesterday? I'd like there to be a GNG exception for 'quite interesting, verifiable, historical stuff that's doing no harm being here', but there isn't, and such a policy would be hard to draft. Mcewan (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I do not think that autobiographies of Baptist clergy from that period are common, which probably makes this notable, as does the fact that it has been reprinted twice. As an 18th century book, it will no doubt be available on the Gale database Eighteenth century books on-line (which has a paywall).  The article is currently an unsatisfactory one, since it is mostly not about what the autobiography tells us.  No doubt that is liable to criticism as self-published (and thus presenting only the author's POV), but it is all we have and it is not recent.  I expect that there are a few more copies about, if one looked hard, but even if there is only one, that does not prevent it being significant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sakaimover (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the article was nominated, there has been enough expansion with cited content, with the subject's significance in the history of English non-conformist and Baptist churchmen well enough set out. Edwardx (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the references in the article now are sufficient for notability. Furthermore, there probably exist more printed sources which are not available online (that's probable for 18th/19th century figures.) SJK (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2018 (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.