Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Clough Daffern

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Clough Daffern

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

PROD contested. Still doesn't meet the standard of.WP:BIO or.WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm surprised this has lasted this long, It seems like an old promotional article. Let's put it out of it's misery. Layla, the remover (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wait, look at these... the bottom 2 on here suggest that this was possible created as an attack page. Strange... Layla, the remover (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing substantial here at all and the sources themselves are also trivial and unconvincing to the extent WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a nice chap. Doesn't seem to be notable. Agree that it currently looks promotional, though the redirect/attack is really weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 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.