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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus William Hare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Created as part of a mass creation in 2004, appears to be from what was then a newly released eBook at Project Gutenberg of a 1910 English "Biographical Dictionary". Fairly obscure British cleric, appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability_(people); he was perhaps marginally notable in England in 1910, but not now. A Google search returns little of note. Text here is copied directly from source, it has received no significant improvements since 2004, and contains no substantial inward links. Article is doing little but attracting maintenance work, e.g., wikifying, copyediting. Was nominated for WP:PROD, but PROD tag was removed without a reason given on the talkpage. jjron (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the once notable, always notable rule. With his brother (which is a difficulty as they had joint authorship) he seems to have well known for his Guesses at Truth which remained in print for many years. The 2nd edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1953) has seven quotes from there, the 4th (1992) three. The number of quotation sites on the internet, taken straight from dictionaries such as those, ensure that he is not totally forgotten, of course. --AJHingston (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The basis of this article's creation tells us that the topic is notable. Bringing it here on the grounds that it is "doing little but attracting maintenance work" is absurd - you don't fix that problem by creating yet more busy work. Warden (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes the GNG; and there seems to be a number of sources available for expansion, such as this extensive passage on his rhetorical skill as evidenced in his Sermons to a Country Congregation, a collection that isn't even mentioned in our article but which, in addition to inspiring the aforecited Edinburgh Review essay by Henry Rogers, received an extensive review in The Quarterly Review. Deor (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So you're suggesting that the authors of the biographical dictionary were wrong when they told us that he was one of the more important figures in English literature? Do you believe that they only used unreliable sources to write his biography? I suspect that the answer to both questions is "no", and if we say "yes" to either one, we have a very good reason to say that he is worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2011 (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.