From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and a reasonable argument that additional biographical data discovered over the course of the discussion buttresses the case for notability. BD2412 T 23:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply

H R Fox

H R Fox (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 10:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Although his position may give him a claim to notability, there are no sources to firmly establish that the subject is notable. Unless the sources that are currently cited can be shown to contain more than proof of the subject's existence, they don't count as SIGCOV. I have searched the Internet and every newspaper archive I have access to (ProQuest, Gale, Newspapers.com) and found absolutely nothing. There is one remaining source, which I can't access, that might help [1], but that still wouldn't put it over the GNG. Toadspike ( talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Another editor gave me access to the above linked source, which does not mention the subject at all. This reinforces my opinion that deletion is the best course of action. Toadspike ( talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete, and a reasonable argument that additional biographical data discovered over the course of the discussion buttresses the case for notability. BD2412 T 23:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply

H R Fox

H R Fox (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence subject meets WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords ( talk) 10:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Although his position may give him a claim to notability, there are no sources to firmly establish that the subject is notable. Unless the sources that are currently cited can be shown to contain more than proof of the subject's existence, they don't count as SIGCOV. I have searched the Internet and every newspaper archive I have access to (ProQuest, Gale, Newspapers.com) and found absolutely nothing. There is one remaining source, which I can't access, that might help [1], but that still wouldn't put it over the GNG. Toadspike ( talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Another editor gave me access to the above linked source, which does not mention the subject at all. This reinforces my opinion that deletion is the best course of action. Toadspike ( talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook