Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Cowan Bell


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Cowan Bell

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable person. Primary claim to notability is being a founding member of a fraternity. That, plus being Civil War veteran and being a teacher at aren't enough for notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 09:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep (see below) I have cleaned up the article, which was unreferenced and full of flowery gush. It is now Wikified and referenced. As nominator said, subject's primary claims to notability are as a founder of a major national fraternity, and as a civil war veteran. I note that only three of the seven founders have articles here, so maybe that's not enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And, how does that remedy the lack of sources to establish notability? For the record, of the other 2, one was a Congressman and the other was a Civil War General, both notable in ways separate from any fraternity founding.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily arguing for notability at this point. I wasn't trying for a full-on rescue, I just wanted to get rid of the gag-inducing prose of the original article. Later today I will follow David Eppstein's suggestion to see if the colleges he was president of might make him notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I note that all of the seven of the fraternity's founders used to have articles, but four of the seven were deleted (some quite recently) via prod or afd. --MelanieN (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are probably the best argument for notability, but they are such small institutions that I don't think it engenders notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After a little research I'm inclined to agree. These were tiny colleges; their president seems no more notable than a high school principal or headmaster. Changing to weak delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Adequately sourced, and the schools he headed save this from being a WP:BIO1E case. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PS I added several more sources that, I think, make it clear he passes WP:GNG. As well as the fraternity founding, we now have a source unrelated to any fraternity or academic work that speaks in nontrivial detail of his civil war service. And note that WP:GNG is not about editors' opinions of the significance of the subject's accomplishments; it's about whether they have been noted in sufficient detail by sufficiently many reliable sources. I believe that Bell has been so noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving my citations, and for adding the military dispatch letter that mentions him in connection with his civil war service. I'm afraid I am still at "weak delete". This does make two different sources of information about him, but the civil war source seems rather thin. Despite his high rank and (according to his fraternity brothers) heroic service, I could not find any mention of him in published Civil War books  - and there are so many of those that you'd think one of them would have mentioned him. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Essentially all sources are linked to the fraternity, and much of the article seems to a slightly edited / suspiciously similar version of []. I think he still would be considered 'one event' as the other roles seem to be minor govt administration positions (from a world perspective). Information about him would be best included in the fraternity's article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2012 (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.