Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Campbell (1827-1904)

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 delete. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Campbell (1827-1904)

[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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. I can't see any claim to notability in the article, a parish minister and administrator. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of any significance. His son was definitely notable and his father less clearly so, but this subject doesn’t appear to be. Mccapra (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see nothing notable in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes even close to showing this person was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems an interesting, if minor, contribution to Scottish history.--Doric Loon (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is to be deleted, merge the information into the article on the son. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In the mean time a lot of new references have been added. I know this may seem peripheral to folks who are not interested, but I would keep it. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not seem to be much about his life that would be out of the ordinary for a Church of Scotland Minister of his era, including writing on his parish. The notability of his son does not mean he merits an article of his own (particularly as it was common for generations to serve as ministers). I do wonder if his being a "co-founder of the Church Service Society" could be seen as significant, but the article does not seem to suggest this as it stands. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete news coverage fails WP:GNG. Citterz (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject clearly passes the WP:GNG, as can be plainly seen from the press cutting in the article, which details the subject's long and successful career. There are many sources which further document and confirm this, as can be seen from the search links above. The nomination's basis is therefore false. Numerous policies then tell us that we should should be keeping this. These include WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:CENSOR;WP:NOTPAPER;WP:NPOV; and WP:PRESERVE.

Deletion would therefore just be due to arbitrary prejudice per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTINTERESTING. That this is a matter of personal opinion rather than objective assessment may be seen by comparison with today's FA in which Lewis is lauded on the main page. Let's compare what biographical data we have for these two subjects:

Comparison of subject with current FA
datum	George	Lewis
First name	Y	N
Year of birth and death	Y	N
Picture	Y	N
Kinfolk	Y	N
Success	Y	N
Career	51 years	1 day

As we are content to host and feature such a comparatively weak subject, suppressing the information from the stronger subject would be illogical.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In response to some of the points raised here I would note 1) One article existing is not a reason for another one to be kept/deleted as per WP:OTHERSTUFF 2) As far as I can see there is no source for the newspaper cutting which means it could be from a local publication with limited circulation which would not suggest notability. Also to my mind the career described level of coverage is not particularly notable in a published tribute or obituary for a Minister in Scotland at this time compared with others I have read 3) As far as I can see the main other source cited in the article are volumes of Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae which includes every Church of Scotland Minister. Thus appearing in it is not a sign of notability. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Andrew seems to be making a strong argument for deleting Lewis (baseball), but this has zero relevance to keeping the topic at hand, who is a generic minister with no indication of significant coverage. A redirect to James Montgomery Campbell or James Campbell (1789-1861) may be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 01:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep George Campbell represented a fast-growing Glasgow parish, in which he initiated a housing scheme on glebe land belonging to the church (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robert.leiser/mansewood/befhouse.htm), and an important presbytery over more than five decades; as can be proven, he moved in high-ranking circles, and the position of clergyman was far more influential in Victorian Scotland than now, particularly taking into account Campbell's work in harmonising church ritual throughout the Kirk in the Church Service Society. He is mentioned in numerous supraregional English and Scottish newspapers. He also features prominently in the Kirk Session records digitised only this year. If this page must be deleted, I would support Doric Loon's suggestion to merge this with George's father or moderator son's page, although I feel that the Glasgow connection is most important. Macgharbhain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I searched newspapers.com for Rev George Campbell in the years of 1827-1904 and get many results. Did he stop in Australia before going off to the East?

The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) 09 Apr 1855, Mon says someone but his name did. Not sure if its all the same guy. Got newspapers in various nations mentioning him, although so far I just see brief mentions in my searches. Does his church have records online listing everything he has done? Dream Focus 22:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hardly think it's the same person; George Campbell's brothers William and James indeed emigrated to Australia, but you didn't go "down under" on a whim in those days, and a trip by Rev George as a parish minister would have been covered in the newspapers. Macgharbhain (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:09, 28 March 2021 (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.