Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Cowley

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 23:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cowley

[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)

Was moved from AfC after being twice declined. Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to show they meet WP:GNG, might be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just another brave soldier that did his bit like all the others and probably managed a DCM and MM from what I can see, I have removed a mention of VC from the article, unlikely he would have a VC and nobody noticed. Sourcing at the moment is clearly iffy but doesnt appear noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the great thing about Wikipedia is that you can get all sorts of obscure information about obscure people. Like Thomas Cowley, or a bunch of old politicians from the 19th century. I’d have to disagree with you @MilborneOne, although I can definitely see where you’re coming from.

- Tom TomVenam2021 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just move it back to draft TomVenam2021 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom currently it lacks reliable sources to pass GNG. Jaysonsands (talk) 10:46, 7 June 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.