Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Osgood

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) st170e^talk 00:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Osgood

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

Article is an autobiographical piece about a person of limited notability, that cannot be edited to make it into an encyclopaedic article. Furthermore a lack of verifiable references mean that I have been unable to check any facts, meaning that the authenticity of this Biography of a Living Person cannot be verified - reason enough, by itself, to make this article subject for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The moderator of an inter-denominational grouping of churches has a role of similar status to a bishop (or even above), from which I conclude that that the subject is notable. However there is rather too much authored by the subject, which is contrary to policy on sources, not to mention COI issues. My guess is that the content is verifiable, though not all RS-verified. Nevertheless, some of it comes from RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Next to no coverage, fails GNG/BIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Peterkingiron's rationale for keep looked valid, so I searched and added sourced his election as Moderator. Article needs improvement. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject appears to pass WP:BIO standards, although the article could benefit from editorial input. I don't see what is gained by deleting it. And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The mere fact that he is moderator of the "Free Churches Group", which includes the Methodist Church in England, should result in his passing WP:GNG. Osgood doesn't ·have much press coverage (see http://www.christiantoday.com/article/millions.of.christians.to.unite.to.pray.for.revival.in.britain/95818.htm; https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/sep/05/assisted-dying-bill-leaders-faith-communities-letter-against; and http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=27022) but what coverage there is seems fairly creditable. As mentioned by others, the article needs improvement but that is never a reason for deletion. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2016 (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.