Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Field (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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Field (priest)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering I added the 'notability' tag after coming across this and other articles about Nottingham parish priests. No doubt a worthy profession but insufficient on its own to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG threshold. Sionk (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's the subject of a biography as is noted already in the article which is fairly widely cited e.g.. He was not notable as a priest particularly, but he was the headmaster of several important schools. He's also known as an education reformer link. He is a figure in Maugham scholarship 1 2 3. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the subject of a biography from a major publisher. This was a poor nomination. St Anselm (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see no evidence that this biography of a priest, by a specialist publisher promoting Christians, is automatic evidence of notability. Which part of WP:NOTABILITY do you feel he fits? The nearest notability criteria to your argument is WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject. There are not multiple published secondary sources and this publisher's raison d'ete means it isn't entirely an independent source. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is still independent of the subject. In any case, Field is not primarily notable as a priest, but as a headmaster. St Anselm (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also The History of Radley College 1847-1947 by A K Boyd. That was published by Blackwell. St Anselm (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The succession box for a Nottingham church ought not to be there, but has headmaster successively of two significant public schools he is probably notable. This is rather more significant than being a vicar who wrote a couple of NN books. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A book published by Blackwell ought to be a reliable source. A book such as this (even if it had been published by Radley College) would have been based on the school's archives, the appropriate primary sources. This is certainly WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2015 (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.