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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Canning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO Collaboratio (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete consuls are not generally notable. The sourcing is atrociously bad here. The fact this article has existed for 13 years is a testament to how flawed our article creation process is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnpacklambert. I don't agree that the process is bad; the product is sometimes weak. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 6 August 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.