Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabez Chickering (minister)


 * 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 delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Jabez Chickering (minister)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

no evidence for notability. American churchmen in the 17th century may be notable for historical interest even if there's nothing special to say, but I don't think this extends to the late 18th century. Norwood Mass. was by then neither pioneer nor missionary territory.  DGG ( talk ) 08:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. In an article just a few sentences long, there are multiple sources that discuss him. He may not be of wide renown, but he passes GNG. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Certainly several sources namedrop him. Which of the listed reliable, independent sources do you assert give the subject the "substantial coverage" the GNG requires?   Ravenswing      00:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have added a few additional sources. Certainly the Fanning biography of him (and the one of his wife) and the Lee treatment of the Chickering/ Haven family are substantial. Hurd and Slafter have biographies that are brief but clearly go beyond trivial mentions. I would also argue that many of the others, while not covering him in great depth, also go beyond trivial mentions. He may not be the central figure in them, but his name appears several times. The format of Grove, for example, doe not permit for lengthy treatments, but several facts about him are still expressed. Tolles is a similar case. The book is the story of a community, and Chickering features prominently in it, albeit at different times and in different contexts. It's not just name dropping. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will add that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Here we have nine different books that discuss him to varying degrees, plus a number of newspapers, etc. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Butthe multiple independent sources have to add up to something that's actually notable, not just to the collection of miscellaneous routine facts about his life. The nearest thing to substantial is is role in helping foundi the library--but theee doesn't seem evidence that he's responsible, just that he joined with 25 other is founding it, who were probably all the people in town who had some social pretensions and a little money.  The problem with using local histories of this sort is that they are basically indiscriminate, including whatever they can get about whomever they can get. Two of the books are published by a specialist local and neighborhood history publisher, the others by publishers associated with thetown or the town newspaper. Books by such publishers aren't RS for notabilityany more than college yearbooks, important as they are to geneologists, . --if there had been substantial coverage from even one general publisher I might say differently, but for that o happen thee would have needed something worth publishing.    GNG is a guideline, but it's dependent on the policies of NOT DIRECTORY and NOT INDISCRIMINAATE.  DGG ( talk ) 11:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks substantial coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 3 July 2021 (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.