Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Norman Nisbett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Norman Nisbett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Subject is a nonnotable clergyman. Article was apparently created by his son. Article also fails WP:V in that none of its factual assertions are cited to any sources. Butseriouslyfolks 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. if the individual in question actually has an OBE. Otherwise, Delete for failing WP:V. --Madchester 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The individual in question does have an OBE and is the subject of at least one nontrivial source (see the "References" section I have added). -- Black Falcon 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the portion of the article copied from http://www.anglican.bm/CTNprofile.htm as a clear copyvio. The genealogical website cited is apparently wiki based and in my view is not a reliable source. Similarly, the title of this page is "Interview with" Nisbett and should not be relied on to support the subject's personal claims. I tried to find an official or news site that verified his OBE, but I could not find any. He's not listed in the London Gazette, but I don't know whether 'provincial' OBE's are listed there. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is verifiable that he was the first Black priest in the Anglican Church in Bermuda and this makes him notable. Also he (apparently) has an OBE which is quite unusual and shows that he is at least notable to The Queen (I can't find it in the Gazette either but if the Diocese thinks he has one he probably has!). There are at least 2 reliable published sources. I agree the article is not well written, but the remedy is to improve the article. NBeale 16:30, 5 March 2007 (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.