Deletion of Charles Goore

Comment: Agree, a waste of editors' time when it appears that the nom has not bothered to do . The articles may have been created by someone with a distant connection to the family, but the lack of  brings in to question the nom's motives, too. In this case, see for example ''Britain's History and Memory of Transatlantic Slavery: Local Nuances of a 'National Sin'' https://books.google.com.au/books?id=CiTGDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&dq=%22Charles+Goore%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj27-3tvbPfAhWBa7wKHbRWBS0Q6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=%22Charles%20Goore%22&f=false, ''Motives of Honor, Pleasure, and Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763'' https://books.google.com.au/books?id=iOUhegQm2x0C&pg=PA482&dq=%22Charles+Goore%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj27-3tvbPfAhWBa7wKHbRWBS0Q6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=%22Charles%20Goore%22&f=false, and many more. Clearly meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG)

Comment: meets  and , sorry but this afd is a waste of time ie. nominator's "very minor historical figure" is their subjective opinion, no analysis of the numerous references included in the article, no discussion of numerous references/books etc that a gsearch brings up
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ANYBIO||WP:GNG)