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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 23:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Horace E. Stockbridge

Horace E. Stockbridge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No claim of notability and fails the WP:GNG. Sheldybett ( talk) 00:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Move to Draft Space Thegooduser Let's Chat 🍁 00:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka ( talk) 02:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply

• Draftify Keep Yeah, I think the deletion nomination here is a little bit early. There does seem to be some evidence of "Significant coverage" of this man, assuming he's the same guy who ran the Agricultural experiment station a Purdue, including an obituary in the Atlanta Journal that called him a "rare mind, a great heart, a stalwart character" see these Google Books results: 1 2 3 4. Since, per WP:NRV, we need only considered whether the reliable sources that would support notability likely exist, not actually have them to hand, I think we can conclude that this man is likely notable, and once an article has been drafted properly it should meet the criteria for being an article here on Wiki. FOARP ( talk) 15:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep, do not draftify. This is a viable microstub which I expanded a little to an actual stub. He clearly passes WP:PROF#C6. If any of the above people working so hard to keep this out of mainspace had taken the same ten minutes to actually create some content we wouldn't need to have this discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep clearly passes WP:PROF and the article has been improved. No need to move out of mainspace, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Passes WP:PROF#C6. Nothing in the article is so unsightly that it needs to be moved out of mainspace to be improved. XOR'easter ( talk) 22:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Clearly notable, although perhaps changing the article to use the institution names of his time, rather than modern ones, would be more accurate. Blythwood ( talk) 23:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment When I saw the article, I was surprised they have expanded it, but it would clearly meet the WP:GNG as with university presidents which I changed my mindset to Keep from now on. Sheldybett ( talk) 06:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per WP:PROF#C6. Thank you to the editors that helped expand it. Thsmi002 ( talk) 02:38, 16 November 2018 (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.