Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebulon Crocker

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zebulon Crocker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Zebulon Crocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to lack significant coverage. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. PepperBeast (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A whole three hits in Jstor, one from the period he was active. They are just confirmation he existed, nothing substantial. I don't find much of anything for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is mentioned here as a notable figure in the religious and political affairs of his day. There's also a 2 page biography here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the book sources identified above and the books and journals referenced in the article. Worldcat shows 447 library holdings for his book here which of itself is not a notability criteria but it is a significant holding for a work from 1838, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per arguments raised by @Ficaia and @Atlantic306

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep with the new sources found, seems to be just past GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2022 (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.