Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doyle McCormack

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle McCormack[edit]

Doyle McCormack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on the references provided here and what I've come across from a quick search, the subject does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG the name comes up repeatedly but the extent he is talked about is trivial. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references are about the Oregon Rail Heritage Foundation and not the subject of the article himself. While he is quoted in his role with that organization, that is not enough to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu t/c 23:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the preservationist organization he works with may be notable but he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2020 (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.