Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Jerrome


 * 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. Tone 07:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter Jerrome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. I do not find any kind on in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Presented sources are local, limited to Petworth News Agencies. Not meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete A quick search doesn't any notable coverage beyond Amazon listings of his books. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. TheOneWorkingAccount (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - There are actually a lot of mentions of this man in local press as a local historian, but nothing quite rising to the level of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete doesn’t meet WP:GNG Bubbasax (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * can you all have a look at recent revisions please? - a selection of the publication titles has been added and some earlier biog which provides a bit more nobility to the broad, developing role of "historian". The geographical focus is local to Sussex (apart from Hebrew and Cyriac specialisms) but the expanse, depth and rigour of study is there. I will research some peer review that isn't accessible through modern web sources Cazimir (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.