Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Charles Pearce (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DGG (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 17 August 2007 (→[]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:18, 17 August 2007 by DGG (talk | contribs) (→[])(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Charles Pearce

AfDs for this article:
Charles Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Pearce doesn't appear to be a notable figure, even within the Victorian anti-vaccination movement, compared to well-documented contemporaries such as William Tebb (whose inclusion I strongly supported) He has only about four lines in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography in the article for his better-known son, the medical astrologer Alfred James Pearce. Also this article has been tagged for sourcing since February, and is well up for review, plus there are signs of WP:SOAP in the use of the selective quotation. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N, and WP:SOAP. Nenyedi • 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; notable during his time for starting a movement of which a Google search suggests he still remains a figurehead. There seem to me to be signs of bias in the concerted recent AfDs of a number of subjects with an anti-vaccination stance. If selective quotation is a problem then fix it. Espresso Addict 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep we have always accepted ODNB as a sufficient standard of notability, as we do similar national biographic compendia. If he's worth a paragraph there, he's worth a paragraph here. I think their standards are as high as ours. If anyone thinks we are better able to judge than the professional historians there, I';d like to har an argument for why. DGG (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories: