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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events), CSD G3: Blatant hoax. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bocephus Foley[edit]

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

This seems like a nice ghost story to tell around the campfire, but in the absence of any sources to confirm this story, I don't think it belongs in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 17:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if this individual were referenced how he this notable? Dying under ghostly circumstances? Unless the article is changed to document the event and it is well referenced I don't think this makes a case for notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found literally no non-Wikipedia web hits for a "Bocephus Foley", so I don't even know if this person was real. And even if they were real, notability would still be an issue. /wiae /tlk 20:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total and complete lack of sources of any kind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (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.