Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Thayer


 * 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The result was withdrawn John Reaves (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel Thayer

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article does not assert its own notability and reads (and was regularly referred to in other articles) as little more than a genealogical reference. Fl e x (talk|contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, and I retract this AfD. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  keep The two assertions are the D.D.; this was quite unusual, and beyond what most ministers had (or have today)., and the 5 printed sermons, when most ministers did not publish any (and do not do so today either). There will be many such articles to remove who do not have such indications.DGG 20:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * His DD and minor publications don't assert his notability. Many published authors simply are not notable. BTW, the Britannica and Schaff-Herzog both omit him. While I admit people can be overlooked and/or under-appreciated in their own day, what has changed? What do we know/value that they didn't? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom unless further evidence is forthcoming. DGG, I submit that your perception of how common it was to publish sermons is incorrect. Countless ministers, frontiersmen, politicians, scientific farmers, inventors and others published pamphlets. You could call it the 19th century blog. Nor is a D.D. degree notability by itself. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thayer is mentioned repeatedly in Jonathan C. Messerli, "James G. Carter's Liabilities as a Common School Reformer", in History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 1. (Mar., 1965), pp. 14-25. Stable URL (with Jstor subscr.): Messerli references (n. 20 on p. 24) W. B. Sprague, "Nathaniel Thayer", Annals of the American Pulpit, VIII (New York 1865), 246-50, and "Nathaniel Thayer", Appleton's Cyclopaedia of American Biography, ed. James Grant Wilson and John Fiske (NY 1889), VI, 73. Pharamond 07:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone have access to these? Why is he mentioned? What is his claim to fame, as it were? --Fl e x (talk|contribs)
 * Keep. In addition to what has been noted by DGG and Pharamond, there is also the source from the Harvard Divinity School.  Wikipedia is not Britannica and our goal should not merely be to duplicate them.  We don't know the reason Britannica did not exclude Thayer and we should not speculate on it.  -- Black Falcon 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the WP is not a paper encyc, but it's also not RootsWeb. I'm not opposed to keeping him if his notability can be established. The problem is that the article as it stands doesn't make any claim to notability; all it says is that he was a man who lived and died, wrote a few apparently obscure publications, and had some apparently non-notable children. What exactly is his "claim to fame"? --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that he has had works published about him establishes his notability. I have access to the JSTOR source (but not the others) and will presently incorporate it into the article (incidentally, that article does identify a "claim to fame" for Thayer).  -- Black Falcon 17:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll bite: What notable "claim to fame" does the article give? (Or was your intended antecedent the JSTOR article?) I look forward to your improvements of the article, which hopefully will allow me to withdraw this AfD. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have finished my changes (including some minor cleanup/reorganisation). I believe the new information, and the fact that the subject has significantly more written about him than was initially available at the start of this AFD, should fully satisfy any notability concerns.  In addition to the old fact of his being a minister, I have added the following:
 * He was a famous/respected minister, involved in 150+ local church councils (in many cases he wrote the councils' decisions); and
 * He was involved in a dispute with James G. Carter, which contributed to Carter losing the election for Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, the first board of education in the USA (Carter was instrumental to its creation). -- Black Falcon 20:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The dispute with Carter would be big news if it happened today, and was apparently big news in the 1830s too. Not an earth-shatteringly important figure, but few people are. The article is solidly sourced and the case for notability is made. Props to Black Falcon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 19 March 2007 (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.