Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Bramwell Long (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 11:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Bramwell Long

[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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BLP or WP:GNG PepperBeast (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and California. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. This is a strange nomination, since we have two reliable sources given in the article already. Perhaps the nominator did not believe they provided significant coverage of the subject - in that case, here is another: [1] Whether it "meets" WP:BLP or not is a completely different matter, and not grounds for deletion. St Anselm (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage for a pass of WP:Basic so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improper nomination, when WaPo and Chicago Trib have profiles in the article at time of nomination. Looks a bit flowery, but not so promotional that it would have to be fundamentally rewritten, and WP:DINC. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to references in article and his notable position, passes WP:GNG.ZanciD (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long is mentioned a few times in a WP long article about a church - the article is not about him and does not give much information about him. The Chicago Tribune is a dead link (did anyone else check this?), and both that (from its citation) and the Battle Creek Inquirer are about the deaths of his children and how that affected his family (not just him). Searches don't pull up anything more. I can't see how he reaches notability. Lamona (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can see the Tribune article just fine. St Anselm (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2022 (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.