Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Marshall (evangelist)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marshall (evangelist)[edit]

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

BLP with no sources or indication of notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hardly think that someone born in 1846 qualifies as a living person. In any case, there are some good references in Google Books. St Anselm (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was categorised as relating to a living person. I added the date of birth and death after this nomination of the article in AfD. The BLP improvement tags been been there for years. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2008 [1] but I see that after some discussions that nomination was withdrawn. The article was later moved to a different page name in 2010. The article still needs quite a lot of work. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Information and references have now been added to the article to give some details of what this person had been involved in during his life. I feel enough details are now included to indicate notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The much improved status of this article is encouraging. It clearly now meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The extent of his travels leads me to think he was a significant figure in the Brethren of his time (and thus notable). I note that there was a published biography, probably published just after his death. The fact that someone took the trouble to write one suggests that he was thougth notable at the time. WP should adopt that view. The article may be a poor one, but that is a reason to keep it tagged for improvement, not one for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple non-trivial sources have been added to support the existence of this article. The remaining issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2015 (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.