Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelis Slenters

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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cornelis Slenters

Cornelis Slenters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not notable as a philosopher. Reference links are all to subject's web sites. Perhaps notable in management - I am not qualified to determine that. 1 insignificant ghit on google scholar. Possible vanity article or article publicising his non-notable personal philosophy of science - a perhaps inappropriate guess based on the editor's knowledge of subjects birth date and nature of articles started by author. Anarchia 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Total vanity piece. Inthegloryofthelilies 15:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Fastest, strongest delete possible NN and per WP:PROF. Good call on the vanity, too.--Sethacus 16:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as failing notability requirements. Also for using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 20:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete non-notable, fails WP:FRINGE, a self published book (publisher: SLENTERS Research), google scholar turns up no citations, this seems to be the only web recognition outside the author's own site, a mere link to his site in a link list. Article is totally over the top "possibly the most comprehensive philosophy of science at our disposal today", and the references (all from his web site) lead to equally florid prose. Pete.Hurd 20:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but give the author a chance to reply before invoking WP:SNOW. DGG (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article's author appears to be MIA. He only edited for 3-4 days in August, all things revolving around the subject of this article I don't think it's likely he's going to be involved in this discussion.--Sethacus 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage of him or his book. —David Eppstein 21:13, 10 October 2007 (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.