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. Appearance in the ODNB is a significant argument for inclusion, unrebutted. Xoloz 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pearce[edit]

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)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N, and WP:SOAP. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 hear an argument for why. DGG (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the above comments:

1) He's notable or not, and the motive for the AFD doesn't affect that.

2) What Google results? "Suggests he still remains a figurehead" is not the same as third-party sourcing that he was at the time, as stated in the article.

3) I think there's no doubt that those who get a full article in the ODNB are notable. But the question is where to draw the line with those who get bit parts in other articles. All ODNB articles contain basic details of the subject's parents - but WP:NOTINHERITED works "upstream" too.

I've added what there is (plus a bit more I found in The Times) but it's not much. The Times makes no mention of him except the 1849 court case, and certainly nothing about his involvement in the vaccination controversy. Gordonofcartoon 11:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. First anti-vaccine medical man of note, and first to write an anti-vaccine book. john

That needs third-party citations. Gordonofcartoon 09:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 1868, you find an anti-vaccine book by a UK MD, any MD, before that, and an editor of a medical journal to boot. And if he wasn't notable you wouldn't be trying to delete him. john

WP:V: What medical journal? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". And assume good faith: I started the AFD because, going by level of coverage, he's considerably less notable than others in the same field. Only an aside in the ODNB, and (unlike Tebb, Hadwen, Collins, Creighton) his work in this area isn't covered in the Times of the period. Gordonofcartoon 15:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Of course he's notable, per DGG. History was not invented by the Internet. Bearian 19:02, 17 August 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.