Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thornton Chase

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) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton Chase

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

Thornton Chase is only covered in subjects relating to his position as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith in the United States to have remained a Bahá’í. He does not pass any other notability guideline. None of the coverage is independent, as it all comes from Bahá’í sources, and in the case of this article almost entirely from one book written by a Bahá’í. A35821361 (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article doesn't have appropriate sourcing right now, but I'm not clear which notability guideline you feel he doesn't meet? penultimate_supper (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

penultimate_supper, care to update your pov? Smkolins (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it would be great to have more sources (and I can lay my hands on a few newspaper references aside from Baha'i background,) it should be minded that the distinguishing aspect of him is not just that he is the first Baha'i to survive that early period but that he served as a white officer of a unit of the United States Colored Troops. There are few comparable articles about people who served in such units but there are some - Walter Thorn, Edward Winslow Hinks, and William Gould (W.G.) Raymond, and few of them have more than a couple/few sources. So I put this in the let's build it and certainly not delete it.Smkolins (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the first American Baha'i, he is referenced throughout Baha'i literature in more than just a trivial reference. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 05:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also added some 30 newspaper references to him… Smkolins (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

… well… a few more than that… and other sources…Smkolins (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing from 1908 is still sourcing. Being the first American convert of any nation to any significant religious group obviously results in sourcing, and that is the case here. Yes: the sources that write about him are primarily Baha'i, but we don't exclude those from notability any less than we would exclude histories of early Mormon missionaries written by LDS historical scholars. We tend to consider figures that major religions themselves hold notable to be notable. I don't think we'd have any chance of deleting Kateri Tekakwitha or Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, and we should extend by similar merit the same assumption to the Baha'i. Before someone shouts WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, please read that essay: it is a valid comparison to discuss how we handle religious figures within Wikipedia and the reasoning behind it. My argument is quite simple: they meet GNG and per NPOV we should treat the Baha'i and secular sourcing like we would for similar figures in other religious groups. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well sourced article about a notable subject. The article should never have been brought up for AfD in the first place.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So - do we have consensus? How do we get this closed? Smkolins (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chase is notable and the improvements to the article do a great job of demonstrating that. penultimate_supper (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2017 (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.