Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Samuel of Tranquebar


 * 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 no consensus. An unsatisfying result, like kissing one's sister, but it doesn't look as though a clear consensus is going to form here. I recommend that someone try to track down the English and German sources listed in the article and, if they turn out to lack substantial information about this person, renominating the article. (And if they do contain substantial information, adding inline citations, with titles of specific journal articles, page numbers, etc.) Deor (talk) 11:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

N. Samuel of Tranquebar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. Completely fails WP:NOTABLE. Article completely unsourced, and therefore violates WP:V and probably WP:NOR. Nothing about this character anywhere on the net as far as I can see, except what refers to this article. Supposed photograph of Samuel in article listed on Wikimedia Commons as 'from family sources' (therefore WP:OR and not verifiable). Not even a suggestion as to what the 'N.' may stand for. Supposed book references on Google (e.g. "Lutheran Theologians") appear to be reprints of this Wikipedia article. May perhaps be a complete hoax. Smerus (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE. Harrison2014 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- In a period when Christian missionary work in India was domonated by white missionaries, being the first Indian professor in a theological college is notable. His list of works, presumably in Tamil (or other Indian languages) is also substantial.  Whether the photo is of him or not seems immaterial to me: if it is not, it can be deleted from the article.  Since most sources on him will not be in English and there was no Internet (or even computers) in his life, the lack of on-line sources is not surprising.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, this comment does not deal with the fact that the article is totally unsourced, totally uncited, and does not meet the criteria for WP:NOTABLE. There was no internet around for the many thousands of historical figures in WP, but that has not prevented there being information about any who were notable by WP standards. Taking the material in the article (which for all we know, or all that can be demonstrated, may be a total fabrication) as read does not provide a justification.--Smerus (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails verifiability. We can't even argue about notability until we have reliable sources that can document the claims in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I count 16 "references". Many are not very well expressed, in that the cite the journal, not the article.  Most are contemporary ones from the subject's lifetime.  You do not have access to them, not do I, but the likelihood is that the WP author did.  You are expecting standards of sourcing that may be appropriate in Europe or America, but are too high for India of that period.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If the 'references' quoted indeed exist (for which there is no evidence), they fail these criteria. See comment by User:David Eppstein. The issue under discussion here is not Indian standards vs. European standards, but the standards of Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I did find an online copy of one of the supposed references and linked it from the article. It does include mention of an "N. Samuel". But it's written in German in a difficult font so I wasn't able to get much more than that from it. Maybe someone else who reads German can get more. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Peterkingiron.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did find one of the Books written by the subject in 1922 in Plain talk of a plain Christian and found this page 8 .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not WP:HOAX or WP:OR .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your source is a transcript form the Wikipedia article and therefore fails WP:RS. Samuel may or may not be a hoax - but if he is WP:NOTABLE how come no one can even find his first name?--Smerus (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect your question about first name is based on a misunderstanding of South Indian naming conventions, in which one often sees names of the form "X. YYY". In names of this form, "YYY" is the individual's given name, and "X." is the initial of the father's given name. So "N. Samuel" would be the proper way to write this person's name, "Samuel" is a given name not a surname, and the question you are really asking is "what was his father's name". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this clarification, but the first name question was by the way, the issue remains notability.--Smerus (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply I agree the link is not WP:RS hence did not add to the article ,just added to say it was not a hoax.Some of his books are available online found one in Google books Plain talk of a plain Christian.The subject died in 1927 and hence most if not all are not available online and in other languages including Tamil Language and it is a kind of Systemic bias  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. There is one copy of a book by N. Samuel in the British Library and this seems to be the one found by Pharaoh of the Wizards on Google. Unfortunately none of the rest of the article on N. Samuel is verifiable, and a single book in the British Library, without any WP:RS secondary references to support it, fails WP:NOTABLE. It is not a question of systemic bias (of the sort which that rather contentious essay discusses), but one of the absence of encyclopaedically verifiable evidence. Best,--Smerus (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete due to the current verifiability concerns. If valid sourcing can be found later, I don't see any objecting to reinstating the article at that time. Silverfish8088 (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (changing to strong keep per rationale given below) due to numerous mentions in book sources. . Although there is nothing in depth there, several authors hint that the person is notable, especially Francis who names him as a successor to Sastriyar.  I suspect that a search of Tamil sources or Indian newspaper databases may well find something more substantial. SpinningSpark 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To say there is 'nothing in depth here' is a notable understatement. Editors who check these references will find nothing but a name mentioned in passing, with not the slightest relevance to WP:NOTABLE criteria.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If this were a 19th century American poet or a French poet then you couldn't blink faster than I would be typing "delete", but the subject comes from a sub-continent that had no tradition of publishing prior to independence. Sources are going to be an order of magnitude harder to find.  On top of that the subject is from a minority language group and the systemic bias here for English language sources makes it another order of magnitude harder.  In view of that, I am prepared to cut this one a lot more slack. SpinningSpark 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I find User:Spinningspark's sources persuasive. See below.ShulMaven (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Even stipulating that the sources exist and contain what they describe, I'm not seeing enough evidence of notability. There are many things that might be notable (He was the first this (somebody has to be first), he wrote this, he was considered that, etc.) but the article doesn't make their case well enough. - Richfife (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Based on the new information that has come to light, noted above by Spinning, I do not think it is a complete hoax. That was one of the initial concerns when listed to AfD.  Consider tagging up the article expressing concerns regarding verifiable sources.  Consider finding a translator to review Tamil language Wikipedia?  &mdash; Gaff  <b style="color:MediumSlateBlue;">ταλκ</b> 02:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above. The 'references' found by Spinning scarcely consitute 'new information which has come to light' - as reading them will testify.--Smerus (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Saying that they may have notability simply because their name appears in a few articles does not a notable make. There is nothing that goes into depth on this subject that makes me feel they are notable on their own merits. Tagging this article is not going to miraculously place sources in ones path. If there are none, then there are none. I have searched everywhere and have only come across the ones mention above. Delete away! --Canyouhearmenow 11:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. There is a list of sources in the references section (the first one, not the second one, which should probably be renamed "notes" or somesuch) none of which are available online.  They are not inline citatitons, but lack of inline citations are not grounds for deletion.  Per the WP:AGF policy, we should assume that these sources do indeed have sufficient depth of coverage until shown that they do not.  None of these sources are online and there is no indication whatsoever that any of those calling for deletion on the basis of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline have actually examined these sources.  Those !votes should therefore be discounted as not policy based.  The nomination suggested this may be a hoax.  While there is nothing in depth online, there is sufficient information to show that the subject existed and the cited sources exist in libraries.  Come back here after visiting the libraries. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and try to get a Tamil-speaker to improve it. Tranquebar was  a Danish outpost, and the Lutheranism to which he converted was therefore most likely the Lutheran Church of Denmark, so it is may well be that in the period in which Samuel lived, sources, the church records - and such histories as have been written of Protestantism in  Tharangambadi are in Danish (or in German or in English).  Moreover, there is no certainty that the name "Samuel" was spelled "Samuel" a century ago.  However, googling the Tamil name given in this article: ஞா.சாமுவேல் produced links in Tamil (a language that I neither read nor speak)  However, this one has some English and looks authentic: http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/who-is-gb/   and http://dhyanamalar.org/2010/04/05/about-us/  and http://dhyanamalar.org/hymns-spiritual-songs/5-yesu-en-neysar-sagaayarumaam/   The difficulty of producing articles on the non-Anglophone world is endemic to Wikipedia.  Is there a system for contacting a Tamil -speak re: articles of this sort?ShulMaven (talk) 00:12, 8 September 2014 (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.