Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Warren Stewart


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Robert Warren Stewart

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Being a missionary, going to China and even getting murdered are insufficient to address the guidance of WP:PEOPLE. A case for notability could be made on the basis of the existence of Mary E. Watson's book which appears to be based on some of his writing or possibly sermons, however the book is a rambling collection of sweet Pollyanna-ish purple prose that says nothing for notability not already mentioned in the current article. Luckily the book in question was not re-printed after 1896 though it is unfortunately preserved forever by being scanned by Google Books. Ash (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a mistake. Robert Warren Stewart is notable enough, his name being frequently mentioned in both English and Chinese documents. Therefore I believe he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. My arguments include but are not limited to:
 * The value of a book should never be underestimated because it has not been reprinted, nor should the value of a person be depreciated because he had only lived for 45 years. The book In Life and Death is not only "unfortunately" preserved on Google Books, but can also be found on the Project Canterbury Site (a project for recording the history of Anglicanism), which makes it all the more "unfortunate". They have included the book as part of the project because they believed his life is important for studying the Anglican history in Asia.
 * Stories of R. W. Stewart are not only told in the book In Life and Death, but also in other Anglican historical documents, such as The Story of the Fuh-Kien Mission of the Church Missionary Society of 1890 and For Christ in Fuh-kien of 1904, to name just a few.
 * R. W. Stewart was the major victim of the Kucheng Massacre, the most infamous anti-missionary incident before the Boxers.
 * Legacy of R. W. Stewart is still alive in China. The Romanized orthography of Fuzhou dialect was introduced by him (see Dictionary of the Foochow Dialect); a Chinese school in Gutian county where the massacre took place was named after him, though it was changed to its current name "Gutian No. 2 Middle School" when the communists came.

--GnuDoyng (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- His status as a missionary martyr seems enough to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the sources so far, I can see that he was murdered, along with members of his family, in the massacre but calling him a martyr may not be supported by independent sources as there is no evidence that his murder was due to "refusing to renounce a belief". This is just using the dictionary definition and I accept that there may well be authors that have called him a martyr in sources I am not aware of that may support your rationale for notability.—Ash (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but are you being too fastidious about the wording? I'm not seeing a single reason here why this entry should be deleted. Many martyrs were murdered simply because they were Christians, but not before they were mercifully given a chance to "refuse to renounce a belief". --GnuDoyng (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is why I pointed out that reliable sources may exist which call him a martyr even if he is not in a literal sense. At the moment such sources which label him a martyr are not apparent in the article or elsewhere.—Ash (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This article does mention Robert Warren Stewart as a martyr. --Jose77 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I remain unconvinced by the notability of this death. If he were living it'd be a perfect example of WP:BLP1E. As he is dead I'm unsure if that applies however I'd still say that a single event is insufficient to derive notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you able to read Chinese you would never put his notability in doubt. --GnuDoyng (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Simonm, if you think, that a single event is insufficient to derive notability you have plenty to do. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per GnuDoyng. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Three sources establish his notability, including a published biography about him per the comments above. Regardless of Ash's disapproval of the quality of the biographical work, Stewart has a place in history that has obviously not been forgotten since the biography went out of print.Brian0324 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Dublin University Mission to Fuh-Kien mentions Robert as one of the martyrs. The adopted Chinese name of Robert Warren Stewart (史荦伯) has been mentioned 13,500 times on google search which shows that the Foochow Christians in Fujian, whom he preached to did not forget about him. The fact that he was murdered does not decrease his notability either now or in the future. For example, the fact that the Anglo-saxon missionary Bonniface was murdered during his missionary expedition to Frisia did not mean that English and Frisians or their descendants had forgotten about him. --Jose77 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Robert Stewart is not only a religious figure. Actually, he is an important historical figure in the history of Fujian and China. He was murdered in the worst massacre of foreigners ever happened in Fujian and one of the worst in 19th century China, which had very serious political and diplomatic consequences. You can find his name in various history books in both Chinese and English. I see no point in deleting this article. --Luhungnguong (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (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.