Talk:Derrick Lonsdale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 18/9/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on September 3 2006. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. |
[edit] Possible Copyvio
The text appears to be an adaptation of parts of [1]. TerriersFan 03:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed that, but by removing much of the text (and rewriting the rest), so that the article could continue to at least exist per the AfD close. Anyone who wants to expand the article back out using free text is encouraged to do so. Herostratus 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Prod
Exactly how is this guy notable? The article makes no claim that this person is somehow exceptional in his field. I've added the prod for that reason. I'm also pasting below a related thread from my talk page. Rklawton 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I want to explain why I have removed your Prod. This article has just survived an AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Lonsdale. Therefore, a Prod is not suitable. If you still think that the article should be deleted then another AfD is the appropriate action but it may be considered too soon. TerriersFan 21:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Two editors voted to keep the article. Two voted to delete it. A prod does not violate policy - and it puts editors on notice that the article is severely defective. In this case, that's fully appropriate. Rklawton 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- A second Prod does violate the guidelines. The template says "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." As I have explained above, if you continue to think that the article should be deleted you should submit a further AfD. In my view, now that the copvio issues have been dealt with the article is not 'seriously defective' - there are thousands of much worse stubs. To be included the guy needs to be 'notable' not 'exceptional'; a distinction with a difference. In my view this is an entirely proper stub for WP. TerriersFan 21:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Two editors voted to keep the article. Two voted to delete it. A prod does not violate policy - and it puts editors on notice that the article is severely defective. In this case, that's fully appropriate. Rklawton 01:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expertise
I removed the reference to his "expertise" that was based on an article that was neither peer reviewed nor published by a journal. Likewise, the article made no reference to the author's expertise. Said "expertise" was a POV comment added by the editor. Please avoid POV comments. If this guy is an expert, surely there's a source out there that says so. If not, then he isn't. Rklawton 02:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
