Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Cox

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Thank to recent improvements in the article JForget 22:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Cox

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

Subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Fair Deal (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find significant coverage. Clubmarx (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do it as slowly as possible since someone's allergic to speedy deletion. Simply being on a semi-notable label isn't really an assertation, nor is saying that someone is "well known" without a source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You may believe that Skomorokh is "allergic to speedy deletion", but Skomorokh is correct in declining the speedy deletion. It is fortunate that he declined the speedy and it is fortunate that JForget relisted this debate because Doug Cox passes WP:BIO. See this article from The Star, this article from the Times-Colonist, this article from The Hindu. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- in this case, being allergic to speedy deletion is a good thing. Sources provided by the above establish notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found are adequate for demonstrating notability. --Michig (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2009 (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.