Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Mars

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. Consensus is that subject passes WP:GNG at least. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Mars[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)

A worthy part-time preacher, obviously a decent guy, but with no evidence, or claim, of notability. The sources I've checked have been focussed on his son Roland Mars, in which Harold gets a passing mention. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, when you first nominated this article for deletion on December 9th, you gave as a reason: "Sourced by a newspaper article which can't be verified ("harold+mars"+site%3Aprovidencejournal.com) and by his son's obituary." In response to this comment I added eight new references, all of which are focused entirely on Harold Mars, not his son. I also pointed out on the talk page of the article that a simple Google search for "Harold Mars" and "Providence Journal" can't give any results, because the Providence Journal's archives are not available for free, and are thus not indexed by Google. In order to access the archives you would have to go to a library and access them through a database, or else go to the Journal's archive service and pay a fee. The bottom line is that there are nine references given in the article which prove his notability within the context of the state of Rhode Island, and of the Narragansett Indian Nation. Among other things for instance, he was a major source for a Berkeley anthropologist's book on New England native folklore; he is profiled extensively in the same anthropologist's book on the Narragansett people; there was a cover story on him in the Providence Journal's Sunday Magazine in 1986; and there is an exhibit about him in the Tomaquaq museum (the museum of the Narragansett Indian nation) currently on display. All of these references are given in the article as of December 9th. -Wwallacee (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources in the article to meet WP:GNG, and more exist, including newspaper articles from 1969, 'Of People and Places: Providence and Newport', The Daily Mail, Hagerstown, Maryland, Friday, September 26, 1969 - Page 8 [1], 1972 - 'Gravesite sought for Aged Bones' [2], 1973 - 'Reburial in Rhode Island', The Boston Globe, Sunday, June 24, 1973 - Page 369-372 [3], 1978 - 'Pastor to talk as Indian Prophet', Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, Tuesday, January 03, 1978 - Page 12 [4]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references added to the article and others detailed above so that WP:GNG is passed and the article certainly deserves to be included Atlantic306 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN upgrade by User:Wwallacee.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2018 (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.