Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Drinkwater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No sources given to establish notability --Stephen 09:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Drinkwater

Arthur Drinkwater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not really a Speedy candidate as there are some assertions of importance. Though I doubt they meet notability guidelines or academic guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep You've barely given me a chance to enhance to enhance the article! Jamezp1 (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete apparently co-authored a paper in 1979 with 2 other people. Google results for this name bring primarily other people, mostly geneological entries. Doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Article was just created today. Give the editor more time to assert notability and add verifiable citations. If the article still looks like it does not in a few days, then I would support a delete. Dgf32 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per user above, give them time —— Ryan (t)•(c) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google scholar comes up with a total of 6 papers and an underwhelming 23 citations for his co-written papers. I don't think there's much that extra time will help with here - if he is notable then it is not for his academic career, and it would only take the article creator a few seconds to tell us what it is for. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. There is no rush, give this a few weeks at least. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Phil Bridger. Does not seem to pass WP:PROF. It's now been several days and the article has not changed at all since its initial creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I will be working to enhance the article over the weekend. 80.42.205.167 (talk) 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment We don't need enhancement. Just verifiable sources that assert subject meets WP:N. Verifiability and notability are basic requirements for an article. Where did you get this information? Can you please cite the source(s). It should not take "weeks" to tell what sources were used in creating this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of verifiable sources and lack of notability. The only link is to the subject's web page? Dlohcierekim 03:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. It may have been a bit bitey to nominate this so soon, but it has been over a week now and we still have no reliable evidence of encyclopedic note for this individual. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2008 (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.