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, and actually almost a keep. I am not sure why some voters instead of discussing whether the article complies with WP:GNG decided to discuss some details which do not seem to be relevant according to our policies, but all in all, more voters believe he passes GNG. The opposition is not insignificant and has some good arguments, this is why I am closing this as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward William Cornelius Humphrey[edit]

Edward William Cornelius Humphrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article was recreated after being deleted a little over a year ago. There is no significant coverage that would meet a specific notability guideline or WP:GNG. He served on a creed revision committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly; he issued a minority report for the committee (almost identical to the majority report) one year, and he was mentioned attending another meeting the next year (the Fort Wayne Sentinel said "nothing of importance transpired"). He attended some notable schools and has notable relatives, but the article's sources don't establish anything more than that. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not minimize the importance of being the only non-cleric, a lawyer and judge chosen to draft the proposal for creed revision at the highest governing body of the Presbyterian Church, the national General Assembly. The proposed changes had been the subject of extensive debate and disagreement for several years prior to the actual vote.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger mistake would be to overemphasize the importance of his role; see WP:UNDUE. Unless I am missing something, none of the sources even pointed out that Humphrey was the only non-cleric, lawyer or judge on this small committee (I don't think the sources mention the ordination status of the people referred to as Reverend - or whether any of them also had law degrees); we should not go out of our way to make a point of this detail if the sources do not. The sources only make single-sentence or paragraph mentions of Humphrey, so we would not be faithful to those sources if we came to our own conclusion that he had a large and important role. See also WP:BIO1E. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right,EricEnfermero that I have made some incorrect assumptions. Yesterday I received from one of his descendants some .pdf images she scanned from a scrapbook. One is a Louisville newspaper article "Death's Summons Came in Sleep to Mr. Humphrey" dated March 22, 1917. It tells me more than I knew before, and one thing I am assuming after reading this notice is that he was not an actual judge of any court, but rather a super-active influential lawyer called "judge" by his peers. More from that newspaper will be added. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is confusion in the handling of deletion of articles. I am calling attention to this here because other Wikipedia Help venues have not led to a resolution of the problem, and the answer may add some light to the deletion proposed here. I have written 26 Wikipedia articles. One of them is about Edward William Cornelius Humphrey, an article which is accurately noted here as having been previously deleted after a long discussion. The other is Edward Cornelius Humphrey, a physician and former chief medical director of the Tennessee Valley Authority who shows on my list of 26 articles as "deleted" in red. I do not recall any discussion relevant to the latter's deletion and believe that the reason given for the deletion may have been the appearance that the article had previously been deleted. I think this is an error made by editors assuming that Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Cornelius Humphrey were the same person. I continue to work on both articles.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC) I have today determined which editor made the deletion of Edward Cornelius Humphrey and have requested that he/she confirm that an error of confusion of identity was made in deleting the article.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article was deleted just about a year ago, nothing about the notability of this long dead person has changed in the ensuing year.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As best I can tell Humphrey was connected with a predecessor of the PCUSA. Since the PCUSA has had 5% annual membership decline every year from 2010-2015, and no reason to suppose this has changed in the last year, the only possible change in the last year is that Humphrey is less notable today than he was a year ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to comment on the notability of this subject, but I'm surprised to read this stance. I thought that if someone was notable at one time (per WP:NTEMP), they don't suddenly become non-notable (or less notable) later. The evidence can be re-evaluated later, of course, but a recent decline in church membership cannot change whether the subject was notable in his time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REPLY If we followed that logic, Johnpacklambert, then John Calvin should also be deleted.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • John Calvin, an entry that turned fifteen years old last week, has never been deleted. There is no good-faith analogy to be made there. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem here is the premise that contributions to wp:notability dissipate with time.  As per the WP:N nutshell, notable topics are those that have "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time".  Topics don't "ungain" attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the premise is actually that Humphrey was non-notable last year (see the previous deletion discussion) and that nothing has happened to increase his notability since that time. I don't want to speak for other editors, but I am virtually sure that the opinion in question was not intended to strip notability from any subject that had previously shown any actual notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The life-time notability of Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and other important figures of the past has not decreased. Rather, difficulties in documenting biographical research has increased. This is due, in part, to the inaccessibility of many newspaper archives and inadequate online databases. Many of the "reliable resources" recommended for Wikipedia are of no value to the researcher of past notability. Historical research requires a more scholarly, attentive approach than many editors have the time or inclination to provide.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of references. Looks prominent among Presbyterians.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MelanieN's !vote in the first AfD. It still seems to cover all the bases. There's nothing to hang the "notability hat" on. I see a great, perhaps even desperate effort to build a resume of a genuinely accomplished person, but that's all it can become. Family connections to a person may color our judgment with respect to following policies, but we're supposed to fight that in ourselves in building this encyclopedia. It may be easier to comply with policies if we write about subjects we have little or no connection to. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stevie is the man! ^Talk, do you know if MelanieN has seen the revised version? Do you know the answer to my question above concerning the deletion of Edward Cornelius Humphrey? Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think MelanieN's previous analysis applies to the current state of the article. But if she reviews the current version and changes her mind, I will figure that into my view. Re: the deletion of Edward Cornelius Humphrey, at first glance, it appears a mistake was made. That admin should revert their deletion and let normal wiki processes handle it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thus far the deletor has not agreed to revert the deletion of Edward Cornelius Humphrey. This article is listed as one of the 26 articles created by me and the only one with a red "deleted" note after it . . . The article is still in progress, and it probably should never have been listed as an article which could be deleted. I don't think it was ever previously moved by anyone else into article space.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  On a Google search for [site:library.in.gov 1901 "Judge Humphrey" OR "E. W. C. Humphrey"], I found the following snippets on the first page of 10 Ghits:

1. Page 3 Indianapolis News 24 May 1901 "E. W. C. Humphrey, Who Signed the Minority Report, Opens the..."
2. Page 12 Indianapolis News 18 May 1901 "Dr. William McKibben and E. W. C. Humphrey, Esq., could not approve of the..."
3. Page 1 Indanapolis Journal 25 May 1901 "of Allegheny, Fa., yielded the floor to Judge E. W. C. Humphrey, of Louisville, who signed...Judge Humphrey urged the elimination from the committee's report of the..."
4. Page 1 Indianapolis Journal 26 May 1901 "Dr. William McKibben, of Cincinnati, who, with E. W. C. Humphrey..."
5. Page 4 Indianapolis Journal 4 June 1901 "...Daniel R. Noyes, Synod of Minnesota; E. W. C. Humphrey."

I also reviewed one of the clippings in the article, and added a quote:

1. "Revision to be discussed to-day. Presbyterians will take up question at morning session in Calvary Church. Admission is by ticket". The Times. Philadelphia. 23 May 1901. p. 7. Retrieved 2016-08-14. The two reports from the majority and minority of the revision committee...find that a plurality of presbyteries which have been interrogated by the committee since its appointment at the last assembly are in favor of some new statement of present doctrines...to prepare amendment to the Confession of Faith... The minority report will be handed in by Elder Humphrey, of Louisville.

Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a key point you are making about the importance of the minority report submitted by Elder Humphrey, because, as I recall, it was the minority report that determined the final outcome at the meeting of the General Assembly. The final Assembly vote rejected two items in the majority report, the same two items opposed by the minority report.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with option to merge to Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey  A most interesting topic and a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia.  Passes WP:GNG.  I also found it intriguing that Louisville was a site in 1897 for Presbyterian reconcilation after the Civil War.  Louisville in 1845 was a site for the Methodist religious schism that opened the way for the Civil War, and PCUSA still has their headquarters in Louisville.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (changed to keep per discovery of additional sources, see below) Thanks for pinging me, several of you. My opinion has not changed from the previous discussion: This person, while undoubtedly a source of pride to his family, does not meet Wikipedia's criteria of WP:GNG and WP:BIO which require significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. His legal career and his extensively reported genealogy do not convey notability. The only possible source of notability is his activity in Presbyterian church business, and IMO that does not meet the notability criteria either. He gets a mention (but not significant coverage) in multiple articles about the 1901 creed revision. That revision got coverage at the time, but only one source seems to have even mentioned what the revisions were about (things like infant salvation and whether a man can marry his brother's widow). The creed revision resolved issues which had been hotly contested for a decade or more, but they do not seem terribly significant in the overall history of the Presbyterian church - much less the committee members who worked on them. The article also says he was involved in talks in 1897 to unite the "northern" and "southern" branches of the church, but those talks were apparently not fruitful since reunification did not happen until 1983. He received respectful obituaries from local sources; that was his only "significant" coverage. The author (presumably a descendant) has done a commendable job researching the subject, but I just can't find the notability (per GNG and BIO) to meet our criteria. (For that matter, I don't find his half brother Alexander Pope Humphrey to be notable either.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially notable in your post was the statement, "The only possible source of notability is his activity in Presbyterian church business..."  Perhaps you'd do me the favor of linking to the notability page that mentions the "possible source[s] of notability", since I've never seen it.  Every snippet and quote in my comment above is "significant^C coverage" (see WT:Notability#The definition of significant coverage for an explanation of the superscript).  Naturally, editors will tend to reach different conclusions when they are reading from different notability criteria.  Even by what I guess to be your criteria (which I'll call mn:notable), though, his involvement in Presbyterian church business I think you should have found to be mn:notable.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Unscintillating. I see that you have engaged in discussions about the meaning of "significant", although your superscripts totally escape me (and don't bother to explain). At the discussion you linked, I find several quotes which go along with my understanding of "significant": "Significant coverage is a matter of depth, not length." "The key phrase is in depth. Multiple trivial mentions in the media don't add up to notability." " "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Now to answer your question: By "only possible source of notability" I mean that his activity in Presbyterian church business is what other discussants here seem to be hanging their notable/keep comments on - that's the only part of his life where notability is being asserted, so that's where I looked for evidence of it. But what I find on that subject is sources with a passing mention, namely, a mention that he was on the committee or that he led the minority report. So that's part of the problem: passing mentions only, which you quite properly describe as "snippets" and "quotes". The other part of the problem is that the committee he was on, the creed revision he helped to produce, does not appear to have had any historical significance, so that even if he was important to the process, it was not a notable process. Yes, it got coverage, but most of the coverage at the time doesn't even report what the changes were - and those changes don't appear to have had a significant impact on the history of the church. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: quote from the Summary of the Deletion Processes: "The best way to help AFD to continue to work is always to check things out for yourself before presenting a rationale. (For example: If the assertion is that the subject is unverifiable, have a look yourself to see if you can find sources that other editors may have missed.)" Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd respectfully submit that most of the comments here come from people who are pretty familiar with deletion processes. When you've just discovered a few days ago - after one AfD has been completed and a second one is in progress on a subject who is a relative of yours - that the subject may not have actually been a judge, I think it rings hollow to caution others about the extent of their research. I know that you probably haven't intended to come across so negatively, but I think it's important to understand that when editors don't care to turn WP into a web space for genealogical research, it doesn't indicate a lack of research, an inclination toward laziness, or anything else. EricEnfermero (Talk) 20:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the delete !voters have an argument, I think redrafting a statement of faith by a major American denomination is sufficient evidence of enduring impact. I also think that, in a borderline case like this, where the person in question is long dead so WP:BLP or promotionalism are never going to become issues, arguing this fervently against a well written but relatively unimportant article isn't a good use of our time and effort. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This isn't an absolute strike against notability, but in the Encyclopedia of Louisville, a nearly 1,000-page book which covers a wide variety of Louisville-related subjects, including people, Edward William Cornelius Humphrey (or anyone with the surname Humprhey) is never mentioned. This includes not a word in the two-page coverage of "Presbyterians". With Louisville being a center of this church, that further suggests this subject wasn't that important. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that E.W.C.'s mother Catherine Cornelia Prather is mentioned in this book by Kleber, and his grandfather Thomas Prather is mentioned many times. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) Also found many references to people with the surname Humphrey. One I noticed was E.W.C.'s half brother Alexander Pope Humphrey listed as one of the original seventeen members of the Salmagundi Club. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC). Also, in the article "Cave Hill Cemetery" in the Louisville Encyclopedia edited by John Kleber, one finds E.P.Humphrey, E.W.C.'s father. The Cave Hill section of the book, drawn from other good history sources, describes the role of the Reverend Doctor Edward Porter Humphrey as a co-founder of Cave Hill Cemetery, one of the world's great garden cemeteries, and as the person who gave the religious consecration and dedicatory address for the cemetery on July 25, 1848. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the Humphreys mentioned were in the index of the Encyclopedia of Louisville (therefore, not considered notable enough by the author to help readers find them). But as for the main point, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Notable relatives doesn't make this subject notable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they don't, but that gives me an idea: instead of deletion, this article could be Merged/Redirected (changing to Keep, see below) to the article about his father. Edward Porter Humphrey, who probably is notable - and some information about EWC Humphrey could be added to that article. --MelanieN (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • In answering the comment by Stevie the Man, I could not let the inaccuracy of the statement about the Kleber book pass unnoticed. I did a bit of research using the search engine that comes with online Google Ebooks, rather than a limited index. MelanieN, Each of the articles Edward William Cornelius Humphrey and Edward Porter Humphrey is a discrete and notable subject in his own right. I am the writer of both articles. Merging the two in one encyclopedia article would be clunky and confusing to the reader.-- Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • No mentions in the actual index of the actual book that I have in my possession says something, though. If the index is limited, it may make one ponder why it is limited. Editorial judgment as to the notability of these individuals? Ask Kleber. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I asked myself the same question, Stevie the Man. The answer I think lies in the fact that Kleber was the editor of the Encyclopedia of Kentucky, not the author of all its entries, and probably not the creator of the index, which in many cases is compiled by the publisher (in this case the University of Kentucky Press). Perhaps the index the publisher chose to create was one listing the names of the separate entries, e.g. "Presbyterianism" and "Presbyterian." Or the names of the individual contributing authors, or both . . . but not the names of the people mentioned within the articles.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC) To be more precise, I should say not the names of the people mentioned within the entries.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is nearly going off-topic, but the editor is in charge of overseeing all the content, including the index. Besides speculating, though, again, ask Kleber. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think we're on-topic, Stevie is the man!. Spurred on by you--for which I thank you--I now have a published copy of the impressive Encyclopedia of Kentucky. I'm trying to convey that the printed index itself without reference to online search engines can be very misleading and unrewarding to a researcher. For example, I looked in the index for Belknap Hardware and Manufacturing Company, an article about one of the greatest hardware manufacturing companies in the world which, as you know, was based in Louisville. A few Belknap family members and early versions of the company were listed, but nothing in the printed index to indicate that the company had ever become more than just an iron foundry or hardware store. Following at random the index reference to one of the Belknap family members, I found him embedded in the comprehensive article "Architecture" by Elizabeth Fitzpatrick "Penny" Jones. Despite the limited index, as a confirmed bibliophile, I am certain that I will use this book and its index in addition to and as a complement to my online research.--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I could get behind this solution, MelanieN. I am increasingly convinced that deletion would just result in a third version of the article with basically the same unconvincing claims to notability and a couple of dozen references that don't cover the subject with significant depth. I would be concerned about how big the Edward Porter Humphrey would get, but I am curious to hear other opinions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This solution is within reason, although I would loathe to see ultimately a biography within a biography. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  A merge recommendation from an AfD has been accepted since 2009, but is not binding for multiple good reasons.  One of these is that a merge requires support from the content-contributor element of our community, to do the content work of the merge.  AfD volunteers are not superior editors on all content aspects of the encyclopedia, and this is a decision left to content contributors after the AfD.  Another one of these reasons is that an AfD close does not bind an administrator into administrating subsequent content disputes; and relatedly, non-admins can close an AfD discussion as merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  I'm not aware of a policy basis to avoid two bio's in one article.  See Mantell UFO incident, and compare with [1], which has the categories for the biography.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there examples outside of events or families? Two bios rolled into one article just because one of the subjects is less than notable on their own is unusual, no matter what guidelines say. Now if there's enough material for a full-fledged family article, then that may seem most reasonable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have ready examples...searches or the help desk might be considered.  I'm saying several things at once here, which are more oriented to gaining consensus, than saying what I'm really thinking.  I don't assume that two bios in one article is a good idea, but I see no reason to avoid the experiment if someone is willing to do the work.  What I really think is that this is the result of pushing the notability inclusion bar higher than intended by WP:GNG and higher than our policy-based content inclusion criteria, resulting in topic starvation for WP:V NPOV material.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  WP:Articles_for_deletion/Barclay_Harding_Warburton_II is a related bio AfD about a prominent century-old American family.  The article was originally speedy deleted as "A7 no indication of importance", and the delete !votes argued "Substantial refs are the obituaries (which indeed seem more concerned with the unusual cause of death than anything else), and very short articles about abandoned plans and failed marriages. Why wuold we want an article on him?"  The result was a Keep, plus resulted in a new article about the family, Warburton family.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Edward William Cornelius Humphrey has been shown to be notable, and the result should be Keep. If, however, there is a merge consensus, merging with his contemporary-- his half-brother Judge Alexander Pope Humphrey--would be the better article for merging. Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Merging a person's article to their parent, spouse, or child is logical and often done, since it is easy to justify putting more information into the article about someone so closely related. Merging to a half-brother is a much harder connection to justify. Mitzi, why do you prefer that target rather than his father? --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging E.W.C. with any of the other Humphrey notables would be an awkward thing to do and would detract from the coherence of the article. It would involve spelling out the full name each time of the two individuals and distinguishing them from one another in time and place and relationship--all of which would be difficult to document. I couldn't simply say "Humphrey" did such and such. What would the infobox for merging two individuals look like? This is especially confusing to the reader when family given names and surnames continue through the generations.Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a simple news archives search, and was astonished to eee how prominent old "E.W.C. Humphrey" was back in the day. Note that what seem to us like denominational affairs were covered at length in the national press back then, and that kind of serious coverage of a man's positions in national church council confers notability. But he is also covered in general circulation papers fo his role in the Bar Association, din discussion of legal issues, and eh weighed in heavily in a long forgotton (well, I never knew about it) national debate Remember the Maine ? So, did it sink because of construction flaws? old E.W.C. gave a number of speeches on th etopic, and they were covered rather intensely in the papers. Keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us any of these sources, E.M.Gregory? They could be enough to change my mind. --MelanieN (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • So glad you found the information about "Remember the Maine." I knew E.W.C. was considered a naval expert but didn't know any details. Also recall reading that he wrote a popular, widely-circulated article or book about Robert E. Lee.-- Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I ran a simple search on Proquest news archive. Because of the paywall, I will highlight a few of the articles that came up; Here, for example is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch "DEFECT IN CONSTRUCTIOIN.: Mr. E. W. C. Humphrey Explains the Trouble With the Maine," 17 Feb 1898, [2] I do not pretend to understand naval architecture, but his argument is that there was a construction flaw so that when the boilers overheated, it ignited the munitions sotre, and that this was true of an entire category of navy ships, several of which had experienced similar , if less disastrous, incidents. Here: is the New-York Tribune covering him as part of a committee revisiting the Westminster Confession of Faith "The Committee to Prepare a Statement of Belief," 07 July 1901: A7 [3], I include it as one of a number of articles about that committee that ran in the major papers of the era; Then there is all the state level bar association/legal profession stuff he was involved in in Kentucky. Here, for example, he is described as the member leading a push at a Bar Association meeting, "ROTATION: Of Judges Opposed By Bar Association OLD QUESTION IS REVIVED TO CONTINUE PROSECUTION OF CHARLES G. RICHTE APPOINTMENT OF NOTARIES Judge Seymour's Proposed Act Making Qualification More Difficult Is Approved NEW STANDING COMMITTEE, Courier-Journal (1869-1922) [Louisville, Ky] 19 Jan 1904: 6. [4] A lot of Bar Association stuff like this was covered in The Courier-Journal, for example, he seems to have been a force behind something to do with creating a new law library. I do not pretend to have read, or even scanned The Courier-Journal's coverage of his civic & Bar Association activities in Kentucky, but he obviously was a significant figure in Louisville, Kentucky in his era. And, nationally in Presbyterian affairs, and to at least some degree in the national conversation about the sinking of the Maine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OK, you've convinced me. It would be good to see some of this material (for instance, the "Maine" debate) added to the article, but AfD doesn't require that the sources be in the article, only that they exist. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I boldly restored the article on Edward Cornelius Humphrey. Its deletion appears to have been an accidental error. It can, of course, be nominate separately for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, Since the restored article on the physician Edward Cornelius Humphrey was not ready for prime time and User:Mitzi.humphrey/Edward Cornelius Humphrey is still an article in progress, how do I go about purging this old, formerly deleted restored version?--Mitzi.humphrey (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think he was a major religious leader, with his importance at the very least on a par with Bishops of territorially organized churches --all of whom we keep in WP. (I don't think any,at least in a mainstream church , have been deleted in the last 6 years at lease). Since the Presbyterian Church is not so organized, its reasonable to use an equivalent. Furthermore, he in particular had a national role. The sources seem adequate. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 26 August 2016 (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.