Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lusk (minister)

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. postdlf (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Robert Lusk (minister)

Robert Lusk (minister) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

As a member of the Christian denomination in which Lusk was a minister for a long time, I must reluctantly nominate this article for deletion: I've researched the church's history extensively and can testify that there simply isn't enough material published on this man to warrant a Wikipedia article. You can find small bits of information on him from a county history (pages 358, 527, 951-952) and from a history of his denomination (pages iv, 84, 273, 337, 369, 376, 406, 420, 421, 427, 568, 569, 747, and 780), but except for the biography on pages 568/569 of the church history, none of this is anywhere close to what we'd call substantial coverage. The article currently cites some pages by David Steele, but as the two men were close colleagues, it can hardly be said to be independent coverage. I have access to some other information about him, but despite its creation in the early and middle nineteenth centuries, it's never been published, so it can't be used for this article. Even including the biographical information I've mentioned, there's really not enough to write a decent encyclopedia article on him: he was simply a country church pastor in rural southeastern Pennsylvania and southeastern Indiana who never attracted enough attention to get enough significant coverage for Wikipedia notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree about the importance of the person in question. His trial and dismissal in 1825 was one of three or four significant trials and depositions conducted by the party that would later become the "New Lights." He was both a catalyst and victim of the ecclesiastical politics of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. I initially began to put up the information to hope to fish out more information. Isn't that one of the benefits of Wikipedia? By placing what is known in an article, others are encouraged to add to the sum. Perhaps I have completely misunderstood the purpose of this endeavor. If its purpose is simply to emulate, copy and cover the popular, what good is it for stimulating expansive thought? Yes, I have a broad interest in Reformed and Dissenting Reformed movements. Since I only began yesterday to contribute, I don't understand all the means of citing and adding sources. I was trying to link to things readily available online. However, since my personal library contains nearly 35,000 volumes in this field (e.g. I have John McMillan's copy of the Westminster Confession passed on from his father, etc.), and I happen to have read extensively in it, I thought I might have something to add to the web. If this is transgressing, I beg your forgiveness. Nonetheless, as someone with a MORE than extensive knowledge in both Reformed Presbyterian history and classic Reformed theology, I beg to differ as to the importance of the man. Is a person known merely by his or her biographical sketch? or is it possible that the cumulative impact becomes most apparent through following the seeming "rabbit trails" of Wikipedia? I had planned to write biographical sketches on otehr personages in this area as well, I am not sure if I ought to waste my time. Although some of the information appears in much the same language as Glasgow's biography, there are added flourishes from Steele's Memoir and early minutes of the Reformed Presbyterian Synod have been consulted. At some point, I had hoped to delve into the controversy tht led to his expulsion from the ministry. This involved brushes with Freemasonry (at a time in American history when it was a very hot topic) and the relationship between Church and State (still a hot topic). I have tried to lay down the lineaments of a biography that will lend itself to natural expansion. The reasonfor the "dead" links to Samuel Wylie and others was I had hoped to go on and begin filling them. Since the Covenanting movement, through Alexander Craighead et al, had direct influence on the American revolution, and the Reformed and Dissenting bodies have exerted such a disproportionate influence in America and elsewhere, it might have been nice to pursue those "rabbit trails." Alas! alas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueSteelite (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For those of you not familiar with some of TrueSteelite's terms — see the last sentence of Old and New Light; "Glasgow's biography" is what you'll get if you click the "history of his denomination" link that I provided; we have an article on Alexander Craighead; John McMillan was an eighteenth-century minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland. To respond to what TrueSteelite has said: yes, it's a good idea to put in what's known in hopes that others will know more. The problem here is that I know enough about him to say confidently that there's really not enough material about Lusk that's been published in independent secondary sources to maintain an encyclopedia article about him. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind divulging your unpublished sources? That indicates there is more available. There is already more up on him than on many others who remain. Look at the entry for Alexander Craighead. Could more be written? Yes, I am sure. Isn't it helpful to have information about otherwise shadowy figures in history? I realize that we often fail of achieving all we would like by way of information, however, some context is always better than none. History dies when it is filled with names that are flat and bring nothing to the table. I understand that many in the Reformed Presbyterian Church and others would rather ignore the arcane. Each personage added is a bit of color to the portrait. I am, however, beginning to think that Wikipedia is not about maximizing information but rather selectively culling from the menu what can conveniently be ignored. I hope I am wrong. I do appreciate the photos of the gravesite (something I would not have discovered without this article).TrueSteelite (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page, since that's really not an issue for this AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. A concern: some of the text of the article looks to be very similar to that in the Glasgow History of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. However, as for notability, Lusk appears to have been the moderator of the Synod; it is my understanding that this is a very important role in Presbyterian denominations. The trial of someone so prominent would increase scholarly interest. Tchicken7 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The RPCNA has always been very small, and he wasn't the moderator when he was tried on the (later-proven-false) fraud charges. When your church only has a few dozen congregations (mostly in rural areas) and it's the early nineteenth century, you're not going to get much of any coverage. As far as the text from the history: it was published in 1888, so there's no worry about copyright. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The moderator of Synod in the RPCNA has absolutely no authority (either official or unofficial) except for the few days annually that the Synod meets, and during that time he doesn't do anything except for presiding over meetings and appointing people to committees. When you're a minister in a denomination that only has a few ministers, and when the moderator must be a minister, you're pretty much guaranteed to get the spot. Today, the situation is different from Lusk's day (there are many more ministers, and a non-ministerial member of Synod was elected moderator a few years ago), but it's still mostly an honor: the moderator is always elected by acclamation, and although it's permitted, nobody ever runs for moderator, nominates a second person after a first nomination is made, or votes against the first nomination to be made. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has been corrected and modified in accordance with public and private suggestions for its continued existence. If other changes need to be made, please let me know.TrueSteelite (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The new additions still don't really help: the bulk of the content comes from the "history of his denomination" and "county history" sources that I linked in my original nomination statement, which don't provide detailed coverage, or from more documents by his not-at-all-independent close associate David Steele, who can't be considered a reliable source here — note that most of Steele's writings are polemics in some way or another, not the type of sources that we use to write encyclopedia articles. The citation to the "Extracts from the Minutes of Synod of 1825" (note that I own a complete copy of that year's minutes, not just the extracts) comes from a section that mentions him in passing: virtually all of his appearances in that year's minutes are observations that he showed up, presented papers, and other routine business, and there's nothing that gives him significant coverage. Finally, there's a citation to History Of Lawrence, Orange, And Washington Counties, Indiana, but it lacks a page number, and when I run a search for "Lusk" at the Internet Archive's copy of this book, I don't get any results at all. In short: there's still not enough significant coverage from reliable sources to maintain a proper article. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The author, a new editor, is making sincere efforts to improve the article, which now has six references. It is not at all uncommon for article son religious topics to be referenced primarily by sources affiliated with the religion in question. I think this article meets the notability threshold, if just barely. Cullen328 (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from my comments above, none of them provide in-depth reliable coverage. Are any of the detailed sources published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject? Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

In matters of religion (or biography prior to the latter part of the 20th century, I would add), as Cullen noted, it is necessary to reference sources "close" to the subject. Try writing a biography of Moses or Jesus or Mohammed or the Buddha using the strict construction of the guidelines you propose. Biography can be stripped of hagiography. At the same time, it is possible to give an accurate portrayal of the subject in accord with those who knew the subject. Any contemporary source begins with accounts from the subject and/or those close to him or her. Are not these witnesses "biassed"? People who actually know other people (not just acquaintances) are not, by their very nature, neutral. I can write an account that exhibits a certain distance and/or dispassion, but choice of material and source always involves a cerrtain "bias", though not always advocacy. I have sought to eliminate advocacy from what I recorded. I have begun sketching lineaments which make the subject worthy of note. I believe both his trial and deposition in 1825 as well as his secession in 1840 mark him as a person of interest and material importance in the history of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Additionally, although the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America is small, no history of it can be written within reference to the split in 1833, or 1840. In 1998, at the celebration of the bicentennial of Synod, the "Reformed Presbytery" and "Steelites" were mentioned several times (I have this on good authority). David Steele did not and could not constitute the Presbytery by himself. In fact, Lusk was the one who agitated some of the issues which drove the secession of 1840. The article continues to carry the "stub" status. What harm is there in letting it remain and as myself and, perhaps, others seek to discover and expand more information?TrueSteelite (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Article appears to be well-referenced and currently being improved, subject appears notable. Jclemens (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep  This article bears no relation to the article that was nominated for deletion.  It has 30 references and a relevant external link, and a mere glance at the article, and the argument that there is not enough material for an article does not stand.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is well sourced, a bit verbose perhaps, but a fine example of biography apt to be of interest to a specialist. That seems pretty straightforward and obvious. This challenge, on the other hand, is more difficult to comprehend... Carrite (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - per Carrite.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep - The contributor seems to me to have used acceptable sources in keeping with Wikipedia's policies: "...primary sources are permitted if used carefully." "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." The Robert Lusk entry in question thus far seems to have nothing which contravenes Wikipedia policies and has the benefit of providing useful information not otherwise readily available. Further, I think that the Wikipedia editor, Nyttend, who is advocating deletion should recuse himself from the matter. This is on the basis of his being raised in and belonging to the segment of the church in question from which Lusk withdrew. Even if he believes himself to be impartial (and even if in fact he is being impartial), the appearance is that he is not. --Dclachman (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (EST)

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.