Deletion of Frederick Goold

Comment: since subject fails . The previous discussion turned obfuscated when a commendably diligent editor offered offline citations. The supposedly conclusive https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XolmAAAAMAAJ&q=%22goold+Frederick%22 inclusion of our subject in Frederic Boase's ''Modern English Biography'', published from 1892 to 1901 in four volumes, comes up empty in the main body of the work, since the good archdeacon is mentioned nowhere in it. (The full text of the book's "Volume 1 (A-H)" is http://www.gutenberg.org/files/55059/55059-h/55059-h.htm here). The name "Goold" is only retrieved by Boase from anonymity https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=XolmAAAAMAAJ&q=%22goold+Frederick%22 here, in the supplementary tomes of 1912. And, of course, the claim, made during that AfD, that any inclusion in Boase's work implies notability is erroneous, as one can deduce from perusing the entries in the aforecited links, which contain soldiery and priesthood galore
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO)

Comment: Clearly satisfies . I would say that the fact that the Illustrated London News for 1877 describes him under "Obituary of Eminent Persons" for 1877 with a c.20 line account is indicative of some notability. Not to mention an entry about him in Boase' ''Modern English Biography'' supplement of 1912! (point 3 of ). We should not expect the plethora of modern-day sources to be anything like comparable with those of the mid-19th century, but we should expect AFD Nominators to read and act on , as rushing to delete noteworthy content from Wikipedia only serves to weaken it. He wasn't just a religious postholder - he was a person living in the 1800s who was written about, and that enables us to say he meets our notability criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NBIO||WP:ANYBIO||WP:BEFORE)