Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidney Bowcott

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Bowcott

[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)

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No claim to notability is apparent even in past versions. JFHJr (㊟) 21:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, England, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find coverage online, and can't find any WP:SIGCOV after a cursory look through newspapers.com. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found no refs. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a lot better than this. Although Edmonton is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors have traditionally been accepted as notable under NPOL #2, that still depends on being able to properly source some actual content about their political careers (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their time in office had on the development of the city, etc.) — we would likely keep a well-written and well-sourced article about an Edmonton city councillor, but there's little to no value in holding on to a three-line stub that barely goes any further than "he existed" and is referenced solely to his obituary. If somebody in Edmonton has enough access to the historic resources needed to write and source something with some substance to it, go for it, but that's not what this is. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't find anything either. Suitskvarts (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2023 (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.