Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedley Bunton

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 of the debate was keep AmiDaniel (Talk) 07:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hedley Bunton[edit]

Appears to assert enough notability, but I'd like the community to look at it together. Neutral. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it asserts notability, it only asserts that he was a missionary who travelled around a bit. Seems like someone's grandad. So, delete. porges 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough there to keep it, though I wonder if it isn't a memoir of one's own relative/mentor. - Richardcavell 09:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but despirately needs to be wikified. Mystache 13:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and the method for asking for input is to list the article on peer review. Not deletion. For great justice. 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are taking my statement out of context. I am asking for community review on whether it is sufficiently notable to be kept -- which is what AfDs are for. --Nlu (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh? This guy went to China, was a missionary, wrote a book about it. The linked page says it succintly:

Missionary with London Missionary Society in China. 
Minister in Congregational Church in Australia.
Authour of "Forty Years of China"

... if that warrants a page then I'm reading the wrong guidelines ^_^ —porges_(talk) 11:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a delete? If so, please state it explicitly. However, I don't think you're doing the page justice. You left out the part that asserted that he supervised 54 schools in Hong Kong (which creates at least marginal notability, I think) and served on the Council of World Missions. Again, not completely clear that that is sufficient notability to be kept, but you left off two of the most notable parts of his career. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out :) I'm still voting for delete (as stated above) unless someone can pull up another source on this guy. —porges_(talk) 23:51, 28 April 2006 (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.