Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William George Dolman

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William George Dolman

[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)

I can't find any indication of notability. I have searched Google proper, which comes up with a couple of for-sale sites, and three pages of Wikipedia mirrors and irrelevant results. JSTOR, Google News, Google Scholar and Newspapers.com return zilch. I'm afraid this may be a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It certainly seems to fail WP:V. I know very little about this topic, so I hope I'm wrong and sources are found by topic experts who serve me a fresh heap of trout because if I knew where to look it's easy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia requires articles to have references, and this article doesn't have any. Catfurball (talk) 20:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: please see WP:NEXIST. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources at all. Curiocurio (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An un-sourced, largely useless article about an individual. Zero sources found as noted .Oaktree b (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one has pointed out any reliable sources. I think it is high time that we started an absolute requirement that sources exist for all articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to build on the searches conducted by the nominator, I have checked ProQuest and BNA, neither of which provide any relevant results and certainly nothing that would indicate notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, does not meet WP:N due to a lack of sources. The article has had years to fix its issues, they remain unresolved. and if after all this time the appropriate changes cannot be made to ensure this is notable encyclopaedic content then perhaps that is simply because it is not so - Such-change47 (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2021 (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.