Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Wendell


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  05:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Jonas Wendell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This pastor doesn't seem notable enough to pass WP:NBIO. Since out of the four sources in the article, two of them are primary, one is a local newspaper, and the other is an obituary. None of which works for notability. Also, the introduction is heavily COPYVIOed from this website. Once you get rid of that, the only things left about him are that he was accused of something and died. So, this article fails WP:NBIO and probably also WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. There is some sourcing but it's really thin. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' it is a good article and has a good source of informationAuthor Sanju (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wendell's arrest in May 1871 on a charge of seduction and fornication was reported nationwide — a couple examples are the New York Daily Herald and the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer. The Pittsburgh Commercial has more information about the incident, which they call "the Edinboro Sensation". I don't know if this is enough, but it's something to add to the pot, if there are other good sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There are huge numbers of references in a wide variety of sources, many not yet digitised. Things like https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=theses https://www.amazon.com/Charles-Taze-Russell-Millennium-Message/dp/1449951570/ref=cm_cr_srp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apple-Doesnt-Fall-Far-Tree-ebook/dp/B00YTA5P5C/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 are digital. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Master thesis' don't work for notability because they are original research. That aside, I don't think two books about Charles Taze Russell, which aren't about him and probably only mention him in passing in regards to Charles Taze Russell attending one of his presentations (since that seems to be only connection they have to each other) do either. People are named dropped in books about other people all the time. There has to be more then that for them to be notable though. Including in-depth coverage. Which books about other people don't usually provide. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding using theses: Not quite. The actual policy details are found here: WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I haven't looked into whether the thesis made waves, but at the very least it could be added as an external link to improve the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are going to assume, assume that, as Wendell was a major influence on Taze Russell, that Wendl will be mentioned more than in passing in biographies of Taze Russell. I am wondering if Adamant1 has ever read a book-length biography--most biographies have in-depth information about other people, excepting perhaps picture book biographies for children. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it is with the cavate that we should be careful about them. As they are sort of original research and it's much better if they are published in a journal where they get reviewed before being published. Although, I would be fine with it being used as an external link. Since the bar is kind of lower for them. As far as the biographies go, it's pretty irrelevant if I have read a lot of them or not (I have), because like you say in this particular case it would be an assumption either way anyway and AfDs are based on the facts, not personal assumptions of what a biography might contain because I've read some or whatever. That said, with the biographies I have read there wasn't usually in-depth details about other people in them. Except when the person that the biography was about had a close relationship to the person or at least was extremely important to their life (but even then really not). Which really isn't the case here. Since there's no indication Jonas Wendell and Charles Taze Russell were friends or had any kind of relationship what-so-ever, and all the article says is that attendance at Jonas Wendell's presentation "restored Charles Taze Russell's faith in the Bible." Which is a really vague and general statement, that doesn't actually connect the two in any meaningful way. Generally, I highly doubt there would be a long piece on someone who "restored" a persons faith in their biography. Honestly, I don't think it's very encyclopedic either. Plus, it's the defining of a passing mention. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, theses and dissertations go through an academic review process called IRB and are typically published in Proquest and often elsewhere. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, not all IRBs are equal and the "reviews" they do are of varying quality. Which is why Wikipedia prefers thesis that are printed in peer reviewed journals. Also, not all thesis are published on ProQuest or "elsewhere." Obviously some are, but the one we are talking about here isn't. It was "published" on the website of Seventh-day Adventist university college's library that the person who write attended. Which isn't ProQuest or anything like it. Id imagine their IRB is on the lower end to. Sure, we could have a discussion about extremely general, mealy mouthed things that are not relevent to the AfD though like "things are printed in differented places" and "people review things." As if both aren't extremely obvious or like anyone here was arguing that those things weren't the case. Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely you know that your assumptions about the quality of their thesis review process in 1947 do not signify. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment BTW, I don't think that the sources provided by ToughPigs about his "arrest" should be included in this or the article. As the source about it says "No evidence of impropriety was ever produced." Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. I know that if you take that and the obituary stuff, which is pretty run of the mill, out of the article that nothing is really left though, but I still it's inappropriate to include it or use it for notability. Even there was a "cool nickname" attached to him being accused of crap. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press is not a tabloid; it is considered "generally reliable" according to the reliable sources list. Not sure what you mean about a nickname, but no matter. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure me saying Wikipedia isn't a tabloid equates to "The Associated Press is a tabloid," but whatever you say. Last time I checked WP:NOTNEWS doesn't discriminate on what source the "news" is coming from and I'm pretty sure someone being accused of something, which had zero evidence and never went anywhere (even according to the Wikipedia article), would qualify under the whole ""Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" thing. Not to mention WP:SUSTAINED. I know certain people are a lot more lose with the guidelines then others though. As far as the nickname thing goes, ToughPigs said "the Wheeling Daily Intelligencer. The Pittsburgh Commercial has more information about the incident, which they call "the Edinboro Sensation"." 100% I would call a newspaper calling someone being accused of something, that again didn't go anywhere and that there was zero evidence of, the Edinboro "Sensation" rather sensationalist and tabloidlish. It would also be on Wikipedia's end to include it. Least of which because last I checked it's against covering accusations and people being arrested for things. Unless it's extremely notable and has sustained coverage. Which this wasn't and didn't have. Maybe you and ToughPigs are cool with Wikipedia including that kind of thing and using it for notability, but I'm not and I don't think Wikipedia is either. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep as this minister meets WP:GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2020 (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.