Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Pearson (priest)

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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearson (priest)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

fails WP:BIO. Uncited for 9 years. Almost an orphan article. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am leaning towards delete, but this article is less of a stub than many I have seen. Not notable as a priest - which is to say that per WP:GNG, priests are not considered notable for being priests, but could be notable for other reasons. He could be notable for his missionary work in Uganda, but so far I find no evidence for this. Have you done a WP:BEFORE? What were your results? So far I have found this biography but the only source given is Crockford's and that is just a list of all clergy, so does not meet WP:ANYBIO. I will come back again after I have done some more research. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of African Christian Biography actually lists three sources for their biography, not just Crockford's:

Crockford’s Clerical Directory. 1906.
Obituary, The Bucks Herald, 28 June 1917.
Pearson, Ralph. 1990. “The biography of Charles William Pearson”, unpublished MS.

This manuscript is in the collection of the Royal Geographical Society [1].

Jahaza (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I read the start of bottom line of that and did not notice all the sources were all on one line - my bad. Yet these sources don't add much. They support that page, making it a reliable secondary source, but the page itself does not count as WP:ANYBIO, and neither does the Royal Geographical Society manuscript. There are other ways to establish notability of course, and the mission to Uganda is definitely pertinent. Yet I cannot convince myself that it is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I searched for more sources and found mention of Pearson in a book on Sudan, A Biographical Dictionary of the Sudan: Second Edition[2]. This is only a short biographical paragraph though confirming the missionary work in Uganda. I also found this book on Spanish Amazon which lists him alongside other Ugandan missionaries. The book is not in any way authorative. The publisher is Books LLC - "Books LLC is an American publisher and a book sales club based in Memphis, Tennessee. Its primary work is collecting Wikipedia and Wikia articles and selling them as printed and downloadable books". All names listed have a Wikipedia page, but an argument based on what else we have is WP:OTHER, and in any case it is clear that several of these are somewhat more notable. None of the other pages actually mention Pearson, which is interesting, and the James Hannington page really should if he is notable. Perhaps there is a case for merge of some of this page into James Hannington (and if there is no such case, because Pearson's mission was not sufficiently relevant, then there is our answer about notability - a full page here would then be WP:UNDUE. Sorry, still not quite ready to say my final opinion, but I don't think I can support an unambiguous keep. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 10:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Further research is just not yielding anything. Again, worth noting that our article on Church of Uganda does not even mention him in the history section. He is just one of the other missionaries. He was an early missionary to Uganda but was neither the first nor the most successful, and neither was he martyred. An editor may wish to add a paragraph about him in the Church of Uganda article, history section, but this does not pass WP:GNG for a full bio. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 14:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from the nom. on this, and no mention of a WP:BEFORE. I am not altogether convinced about the notability, but withdrawing my delete. I am neutral on this one. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 21:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he qualifies for notability as leader of one of the earliest groups of Christian missionaries in Uganda. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-three reliable, independent sources: this journal article, this book, and this book. Along with the external link on the article, that's four sources, more than enough.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Epiphyllumlover (talk · contribs). Still, the question is whether these meet WP:BASIC which is clear that coverage of the subject of the biography must be significant. It is not enough to be mentioned as being on the mission. There must be something that shows the subject is significant to meet WP:GNG. The journal article is the best. The title is "The Instructions Issued in 1876 and 1878 to the Pioneer C.M.S. Parties to Karagwe and Uganda: Part II", so the article is very clearly a close look at the missionary party that Pearson was on. Indeed it describes that he led it, although speculates about why he was chosen over the other two. This is clear coverage of the subject, but the article itself is extremely niche. It is looking at a largely unsuccessful missionary expedition to Uganda that otherwise is all but forgotten to history, and Pearson is a player in that. Again, he qualifies for treatment in any article about the mission, but how does this say he qualifies for a biography? The books appear to again just tell us he was on this missionary endeavour. If the endeavour were more notable, so would he be, but then we find little evidence that it actually was, which is why he and this mission don't seem to get any mention anywhere else. I would be grateful for your thoughts on that. Have I misunderstood what constitutes significant coverage? -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 08:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the Dictionary of African Christian Biography passes WP:ANYBIO. It's a substantial scholarly project by a worldwide group of university professors. I think not seeing it as such is American/European bias. He also appears in this biographical dictionary of the Sudan[3]Jahaza (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO actually says "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." I don't think it is American/European bias. It is what the biography is attempting that is pertinent. Yet if the nominator is not going to chip in on this at least (having presumably carried out a WP:BEFORE ) then I am not going to keep questioning this. -- Sirfurboy

(talk) 18:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am guessing the Dictionary of African Christian biography counts for notability (I also feel the same way on those who have entries in The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, but I have not persuaded people to keep articles on that ground. I think having an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Sudan is an even clearer sign to keep.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His career as a missionary is certainly notable, as one of the early attempts to create the (Anglican) Church of Uganda. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources above, especially having an entry in the Biographical Dictionary of Sudan, point to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2020 (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.