Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bliss

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. It looks like the article has been significantly updated since being listed at AFD and the consensus now is that it passes WP:BASIC (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bliss

[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)

Article on a non-notable clergyman. No clear claim of notability and no sources found in a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-just added seven in-line references, he appears to be notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing by Epiphyllumlover.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is shown to be notable as an author rather than clergyman as per the multiple reliable sources added to the adticle so that WP:Basic is passed and deletion is no longer necessary Atlantic306 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inline citations improved by reFill tool.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 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.