Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Broughton Davies

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 Keep as this seems clear for now (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Broughton Davies

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

Don't see a clear case for notability here Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I cleaned it up a bit and added a second source. It could be a lot longer, but I think it meets WP:N. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject seems notable as one of the first western educated doctors in the region. I found another source [1] and it seems more are available. Will add it when I have time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -I agree, seems significant and notable, just needs more work Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for notability is crystal-clear, and supported by the books and scholarly papers found by the searches linked above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 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.