Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Tucker (civil servant)
- 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Benjamin Tucker (civil servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
GNG probably not satisfied. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, United Kingdom, and England. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: For those without Oxford DNB access, I believe this is more-or-less the same entry. Curbon7 (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Have you considered ]
- Per there,
conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)- It's a good sign people might expect more than 4 words on why you may think it not likely to satisfy GNG though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Per there,
- Keep. Easily meets ]
- Keep. With an entry in the DNB, clearly meets ]
- Keep per ]
- Keep per ]
- Keep per Cielquiparle. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Cielquiparle and ]
- 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.