Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James N. Gardner

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 of the debate was No consensus. No prejudice against a renomination of this article if the concerns of this AfD aren't met in the near future. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James N. Gardner

Non-notable author of the AfDed biocosm idea. Delete per AfD for biocosm. --ScienceApologist 09:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per the other AfD - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete. If Biocosm goes completely, this article should go too. However, if it's retained in any form, this article should stay. Tevildo 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Biocosm was closed as "don't delete" (either reduce to a stub or merge with Anthropic principle), so I'll need more consensus before deciding what to do with this article. --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per my earlier comment. If Biocosm is notable in some form, then its originator probably is. Tevildo 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ranks like 342,000th on Amazon as far as his book goes. Tychocat 21:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Either Exapand or Delete if there is no more information to put in the article. Its a sub-stub as it stands right now. --Pboyd04 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

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.