Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Percy Gray Doane

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Gray Doane

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

lots of puffery and namedropping, of which only one has an article on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: not in Internet age so sources may be hard to find. That said, his google hits are either WP mirrors or not useful, the two Gbooks hits are namechecks in a philately journal. The input of someone with access to American newspaper archives would be helpful. BethNaught (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This: http://stamps.org/HOF-1946#Doane shows that he was once thought very important and suggests that pre-internet sources should be available to justify the article. Probably in old copies of the American Philatelist. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: APS Hall of Fame seems notable enough for me. ww2censor (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (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.