Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles James Fox (doctor)


 * 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. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Charles James Fox (doctor)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about a 19th century physician, but the text consists primarily of (a) obituaries quoted in full with no attribution other than a citation to "Family archive of the writer of this article", and (b) genealogical information about the subject's descendants. The article culminates with the text in Latin of a benediction (not translated into English). I don't see any indication that the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The article effectively concedes his lack of notability when it states that "the only known description of his life are (sic) the obituaries written at his death." My searches find no evidence that he was anything but a run-of-the-mill physician, albeit a charitable one. Barring additional coverage, he fails WP:NBIO. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be notable to me, has an entry in the Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences médicales and obituaries in The Lancet and The Tablet on 16 May 1874 and 23 May 1874 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nominator. Obituaries and genealogy doesn't quite cut it for an article in its own right. Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.