Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Begg

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. Rlendog (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Begg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

• Delete. Non notable person. So he did some editing and writing for non-notable publications. Wow! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So-called "notability" is shorthand for "there aren't any reliable sources for this topic", which is clearly not the case. Also, he was "notable" enough for the The Nuttall Encyclopædia. Pointless deletionism is not in the interest of the encyclopedia. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a notability guideline that is used as a guide for including or excluding article. I am contesting the notability of this topic based on those guidelines. Also, an entry in The Nuttall Encyclopædia is not a guarantee of notability for WP. The notability of your name did give me pause when putting the article up for deletion ! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This, in conjunction with "Further reading" and "External links" on James Begg (plus Nuttall) should suffice. --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 14:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The present article is a mere stub, but this biography clearly shows notability. Being Moderator of the Scottish Free Church should be sufficient in itslef. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are multiple secondary sources, so they are a notable person.--Vclaw (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added the Dictionary of National Biography link to the article. There is more needs to be done to the article, for example to bring out his role in the history of Sectarianism in Scotland. AllyD (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per the reasons given above.Autarch (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Dictionary of National Biography is already enough for WP:BIO, never mind all the other sources. An apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.74.166 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deletion would necessitate deletion of Thomas Chalmers as well, which is ludicrous. A 19th century figure pre-internet, the very fact of his memoirs being published by a third party is adequate satisfaction of WP:GNG. The subject is notable both as a theologian and architectural influence.

MadZarkoff (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.