Deletion of Frederick G. Strickland

Comment: mostly per  along the lines of what DGG already said. But I think https://books.google.com/books?id=eX0QOpl7iBQC&pg=PA1833 his inclusion in the 1908 Who's Who (back when that meant something) also goes a long way towards . Also I think the De Leon source should be removed per ; it is clearly editorial in nature and would not be tolerated as a source if the subject were living, so why is it ok in this case
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT||WP:GNG||WP:ATTACK)

Comment: per {{u|DGG}} and clear neglect of . Despite the nominator's claim that only one other reference can be found on Google, '''a quick search turns up https://www.google.ca/search?q=Frederick+Strickland+Knipperdoling+OR+socialist&tbm=bks at least another half-dozen sources''' – and that's without clicking onto page 2 and without using any less-than-obvious search terms. (Having not done extensive research, on can only assume ''prima facie'' that this is the same person as surely there can't be that many American Christian socialist ministers with the name ''Frederick Strickland'' active in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) And given that we're dealing with an historical figure, it shouldn't come as a surprise that most information would not be freely available on the internet. Special:Contributions/142.160.131.202|142.160.131.202
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: per , as others have argued above
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)