Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Edwards (archdeacon)


 * 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. Appears to be notable, and consensus says to keep. Malinaccier (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Edwards (archdeacon)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. No assertion of notability MrShamrock (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsure. I think a fellow of a prominent Oxford college is a notable position;  I'm conscious however that the sources we have are trivial and the article will never grow beyond its current state.  I don't think that's necessarily a problem, though. JulesH (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Archdeacon seems to have been a notable position within the church during his lifetime. Edward321 (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets WP:RS standards. There is no cause to delete it if it doesn't grow beyond its stubby state. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The positions held were much more notable then than they would be now. Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (creator of article) - not only (as Edward321 and Johnbod say) were Archdeacons more prominent in those days, but this man has an entry in the national biographical dictionary for Wales, and so has been considered by others prominent enough in the history of his country to merit an entry. BencherliteTalk 05:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete seems to be unimportant. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-cited stub. He was apparently notable in the past.  The stub probably needs some cleanup, which I'll try as an easy rescue. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing more to say about him than that he exists. An archdeacon is just two ranks above a regular priest and still several ranks short of bishop. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. How many "regular priests" can be sourced 400 years later?? That this individual CAN as an Archdeacons says much for his historical notability. And religious hirearchy is a bit different now than it was 400 years ago. Notability is not temporary.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Added another ref, more data. There are enough RS's for a useful article.  He is very hard to search on because of the 2 (near) contemporary also religious figures of the same name.John Z (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I agree that there's factual information in the article that has been adequately sourced. But it's all "he took this position on this date" sort of things. There's nothing in there to distinguish him from any other seventeenth-century churchman, nothing that we can point to as his contribution to the history of the time, no writings mentioned as having survived, no discussion of what influence he might have had on others in his time at Oxford, and in short, no notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2009 (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.