Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oswald Staniforth

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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Staniforth

[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)

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing.

This subject is perhaps more notable than some of the others but there still isn't much to go on. Uninvited Company 22:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 14 AfDs in one day by one nom is too much! They may be individual AfDs, but they are still bulk in number, far too many to do proper assessment of, especially when it's not clear that the Nom has done WP:BEFORE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Three books of which I suspect none of us will hear of is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether any of us will hear about the books, but whether enough people have already read and reviewed or cited the books - that's what we need evidence for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, notable author, and the large amount of afds seems suspect.. 2602:306:CF9B:2700:FDB7:2843:D5FA:3F34 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a few more Citations that show noteworthiness.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems sufficient coverage of the books (particularly for the beginning of the 20th century) to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps it's me, but it appears to me that most of the sources don't even mention the subject (or at best just in passing). And a reference (#1) to a book selling website doesn't say anything at all, of course. More debate about the quality of the sources seems to be needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sustained and sufficient coverage/notability of his works shows that this is a keep. JC7V (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep probably. What I have been able to find about this person includes a couple of reviews of The Saint of the Eucharist, in a source which is included in the article (The Irish Monthly, 1908, Volume 36, Page 586) - it's not possible to see any of it in the Google Books view of the actual book, but the search result shows the beginning of a review ("It is based on all the newest materials and the older lives, and Father Oswald Staniforth, O.S.F.C., has very properly not translated but adapted the excellent biography written in French by Father Porrentruy, the Definitor-General of the ...."). Another review that comes up on a Google search is in the The Downside Review, Volumes 27-28, 1970 [1] - none of the review is visible in the snippet, but there's part of a review of another book visible above it). That book is still in nearly 50 libraries over 110 years after its publication, according to Worldcat. I have found two newspaper reports [2], [3] of the lecture series he gave in Oxford in 1928 (the lectures were also published, and I have added that title to the article; if the article is kept, I can add the reports as references). Another source already in the article, The Official Catholic Directory for the Year of Our Lord 1905, does confirm that he was at St Anthony's Mission in Mendocino (I have replaced the url in the citation with one which shows his name). I've also found a newspaper report that he was elected president of the Esperantists' League of English Catholics in 1926 [4]. I have also found a source for his ordination in 1889 (The Tablet, Volume 74) [5], and another source already in the article, The Catholic Encyclopedia and Its Makers, clearly has an entry about him, but all that the Google Books snippet shows of it is his name, so I will take it on trust that the article is an accurate representation of it. I think that all that shows that there is enough coverage of him to show notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2019 (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.