Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barclay Fox

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 delete. ✗plicit 02:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barclay Fox

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Fails WP:GNG, most of the sources are Fox family journals or genealogy-type references. Penale52 (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be enough independent coverage of the subject to establish notability. The most significant coverage is from his own journal, which is obviously a primary source. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, please I have added a section on Barclay Fox's visit to Ireland during the Great Famine. ODNB's entry for his father and his sister, Caroline make more sense with this companion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vernon39 (talk • contribs) 2021-05-17T11:51:27 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTGENEALOGY Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe there are more sources offline, but, a primary source as the main source and not much else offered up isn't enough to convince me this subject passes our WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2021 (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.