Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Howard (Australia)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) Subject is notable. WilliamH (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Henry Howard (Australia)
I can't seem to find many sources to prove the notability for this unencyclopedic article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The article cites two reliable sources: the Dictionary of Australian Biography (1949) and the Australian Dictionary of Biography (1983). If both those sources consider him worth writing about, then he probably is notable. He wrote several books which were widely read. Remember, he was from an era when good preaching could make one a celebrity. --Eastmain (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- And as evidence that there is still a market for his books, see http://www.biblioz.com/lp25762848979_775.html and click "Click Here to Check All Current Online Stock For This Title Now" or see http://www.amazon.com/Conning-Tower-Soul/dp/B000GLEJSM --Eastmain (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Meets WP:N, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and each other. These sources are a good guide used by WP:AUST to determine notability and indeed this article is part of a project "to-do" list. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment "Howard was unquestionably one of the greatest preachers in the history of Australian Protestantism" -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: You don't need many sources for notability when you have the Dictionary of Australian Biography -- being included in that alone completely and adequitely demonstrates it, just as inclusion in the Dictionary of National Biography would. Multiple sources would be good for verification of information, but that's a content issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep, ludicrous nomination.--Grahame (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per everyone. It seems that the nominator's characterizations of the article are misplaced. Maxamegalon2000 07:17, 7 May 2008 (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.
