Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adonijah Bidwell

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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adonijah Bidwell

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

I could not verify notability. Reads like an essay done by a descendant with sources to match. Has been tagged for notability for over 8 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a very interesting story glancing through the articles, but there isn't enough scholarship to pass GNG, based on my google searching. Maybe someday a page for the Bidwell family at large would warrant a mention of his name. Yvarta (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the level of scholarship to justify having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This Bidwell is the namesake of the Bidwell Museum and his sermons were written in a code which has received some publicity (here and elsewhere). The sermons themselves are carried by a number of libraries, this library holding includes a brief biography. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not an essay and GNG does not have a standard of scholarship. An eight-year old tag without any discussion on the talk page would be a reason to contact the person who added the tag, who is still active on Wikipedia. Nor has the nomination discussed the red links that would be created by the discussion, which is WP:BEFORE B5. WP:BEFORE C1 states, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." The WP:BEFORE D1 "minimum search expected" on Google Books includes:

Smith and Cushing, History of Berkshire County, Massachusetts: With... 1885, "...Adonijah Bidwell, who was the first pastor of the Congregational church, the first church established in Tyringham, now Monterey. Rev. Adonijah Bidwell was of English stock and his heirs have the family genealogy from King Egbert the Great..."
Cooke, Historic Homes and Institutions and Genealogical and ..., 1906, "Adonijah Bidwell, while a resident of Stockbridge, served as one of the early treasurers of Berkshire county and also as attorney-general of Massachusetts. Adonijah Bidwell (2) had a son, Barnabas Bidwell, who also followed agricultural ..."
Drew, Henry Knox and the Revolutionary War Trail in Western..., 2012, "Adonijah Bidwell (1716–1784), Township No. 1's first settled minister, in 1750 was assigned a lot on which to build a home in the original town center, on the Great Road. Stone ruins not far from the present dwelling were probably his first, ..."

The arguments that "somebody should improve the writing", "somebody should improve the level of scholarship", and "somebody should do something about the notability tag"; are arguments for someone else to improve the encyclopedia. AfD is not cleanup. WP:SOFIXIT is an editing guideline, and it relies on WP:5P and WP:PRESERVE. Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the research, thanks for bringing these books back. However, would I be correct in ascertaining that the mentions of Bidwell within those books are very short? Despite being mentioned in several sources, which proves he did exist, I worry that there isn't enough significant coverage to push this biography past WP:GNG (plenty of old-timey Americans were old British nobles and preached from pulpits, but I wouldn't argue all are notable by default). I still think a page on the Bidwell family might not have the same issues. Yvarta (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: Do you agree to a merge to Bidwell family? If you do, I do. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I do. I've been too busy to get to this, but I still think the subject is suitable for an article. If the article hasn't been deleted by next week, I plan to expand it a bit, and will ping around then and see if I can meet the Heymann Standard. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit to the page. The references: Franklin 1885, Terry 1892, Smith and Cushing 1885, Dooley 1900, and Clute 1993 are all non-genealogical, independent sources which discuss Bidwell for multiple paragraphs. I only can see the first page of Clute 1993 at proQuest, and suppose that the later pages of that source may include more details (if anyone can access the full thing, I am curious). I do not find a published version of John Demos' research, but Demos is a respected historian who gave a talk about Bidwell (a related talk is available on youtube). Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the Clute paper [1]; pretty much the whole thing (22 pages) is about Bidwell. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectas not independently notable and what's here is unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, a related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Devotion Bidwell. Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just to be clear, there are now a number of sources which are independent of the subject and of the museum dedicated in part to the subject which cover the source in depth included in the article, and thus I believe the article passes GNG. Many of these sources have been added since people added their !votes. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:50, 21 January 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.