Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montague Davenport


 * 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. Alexf(talk) 19:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Montague Davenport

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability and verifiability concerns on this long-arguably-sourced BLP. On my own, I'm unable to find reliable secondary sources that cover this subject, there's his book, and there's a reference here or there to him in passing (gaining directorship of the water company redlinked), but nothing significant that I can find myself.

The article claims two sources, "Who's Who" (which is the title of any number of books from any number of publishers, most of which aren't considered reliable sourcing), and The Sherborne Register. The latter is fairly ambiguous, I first assumed it to be a newspaper but now believe it's a genealogical research site, possibly opening up concerns about the reliability of user-submitted data, that site doesn't appear to contain records for a Montague Davenport in any case.

Anyway, sources as always, welcome, but lacking this, I think this article fails to meet WP:GNG. j &#9883; e decker talk  23:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete After searching, no reliable sources. Searches for "Montague Davenport" (as opposed to the far more famous Hayward Montague Davenport) and "Sherborne Register" or "Who's Who" bring up no relevant results. Almost all results are Wiki mirrors. -  ManicSpider (talk) 05:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per ManicSpider Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unable to find coverage in any reliable sources, does not meet WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 01:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Tooga - BØRK! 13:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't appear to be notable (and I've never heard of him in the course of my work). bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (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.