Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick G. Strickland


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Frederick G. Strickland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, NBIO. Didn't think an A7 applied, though. Only found one other ref after a Google search. South Nashua (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 15:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Question – Which other ref was that, ? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This little blurb. Not even sure if it's the same guy! South Nashua (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Negligible GS cites. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable. On the other hand there needs to be major improvements to our article on Knipperdolings. Two things remain unclear, one is how Strickland and associates were connected to the 16th-century Anabaptists. Was there a continual line of actions, or did Strickland and his associates start the new movement after reading of the ideas of the 16th-century Anabaptists. Considering that one of the main sources on Knipperdolings was published in 1804, we clearly have sub-par sourcing. I do have to admit that one of my big concerns about many of the articles on religious groups in Wikipedia is there is rarely much good information on group size. At least a lot of articles would do well to report at least the number of congregations a group has had at various times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable. To which rule are you referring, specifically? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, what you have is a dissertation topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but Wikipedia is not the place to write dissertations. It is an encyclopedia that is meant to reflect currently contemporary scholarship on a topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't answered the question: to which rule were you referring, specifically? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment When you go back over 100 years what you find are sources. There may be enough of them to source a page on this minor socialist; socialists  write a lot.   I recommend searching both Fred and Frederick, I didn't use his initial just his surname and keywords like "Yellow Springs" and socialist.  Where I have grave doubt is about the assertion that he was a  Knipperdollings.  Bernhard Knipperdolling was a real 16th century anabaptist.  Where the Strickland article goes off the rails is in the assertion that Strickland was a Knipperdolling.  It seems to come from  this 1904 nespapaercolums ], but it is not clear that nay knipperdollings sourvived the Münster rebellion of 1534.   The term was  as a put-down of something Strickland had written and, from that, turned into a wikipedia article Knipperdolings which needs to be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. "The nature of Wikipedia rules on notability mean mean that when you have to go back over 100 years to find references on someone, they are generally not notable" is the exact opposite of a valid argument. Wikipedia covers the entire range of people, and the entire historical range of source. WP is not a current record of just the last 100 years, but an encyclopedia. Sources are available, and there is no reason why the career was not notable in its time; once notable, always notable is the true rule for an encyclopedia .  DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per and clear neglect of WP:BEFORE. Despite the nominator's claim that only one other reference can be found on Google, a quick search turns up at least another half-dozen sources – and that's without clicking onto page 2 and without using any less-than-obvious search terms. (Having not done extensive research, on can only assume prima facie that this is the same person as surely there can't be that many American Christian socialist ministers with the name Frederick Strickland active in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) And given that we're dealing with an historical figure, it shouldn't come as a surprise that most information would not be freely available on the internet. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, mostly per WP:RECENT along the lines of what DGG already said. But I think his inclusion in the 1908 Who's Who (back when that meant something) also goes a long way towards WP:GNG. Also I think the De Leon source should be removed per WP:ATTACK; it is clearly editorial in nature and would not be tolerated as a source if the subject were living, so why is it ok in this case? —David Eppstein (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sources that come up in searches suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RECENT, as others have argued above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2017 (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.