Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bramwell Seaton Bonsall

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 delete. Consensus is that this is a WP:BIO1E situation, and that the individual doesn't pass WP:GNG. -Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bramwell Seaton Bonsall[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements Eastshire (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have added refs. He was clearly an interesting character, and for a bio of a long-dead methodist missionary and author there is enough here to say keep.

The problem I have is the only notable thing he seems to have done is an unpublished translation of Dream of the Red Chamber which is adequately covered at its own page (including a link to the transcript). Under WP:BIO1E it seems he shouldn't have his own article. I will grant you that there are many other articles currently on Methodist missionaries whose sole apparently claim to notability is that they were Methodist Missionaries. Eastshire (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Unfortunately there is so little content that it is difficult to judge notability. Tag as stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a missionary doesn't make you notable, and nor does being dead. The only thing we have is a biographical note by his son. This lacks the multiplicity required by WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage is not independent, and indeed almost all related to his translation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is not independent or significant in nature. I do not see evidence that persuades me that he meets the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:49, 30 May 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.