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. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Paul M. Davis Jr.

Paul M. Davis Jr. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Another Louisiana obituary with no assertion of notability. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 20:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is the portrait of a productive and admirable life, but there is no indication of the kind of notability that results in inclusion in an encyclopedia. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Sources don't show notability. Not enough published papers to satisfy other notability guidelines so I am marking this as delete. THEFlint Shrubwood ( talk) 22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, WP:NOTPAPER and this comes across as pure WP:BITTERNESS against the "now-baneed editor" whatever he did or didn't do. Tony May ( talk) 08:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Not paper is not an argument to keep an article. Just because something can be online doesn't mean it should: "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Reywas92 ^Talk 22:04, 6 April 2019 (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.