Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doncaster and Raynor

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doncaster and Raynor

Doncaster and Raynor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

linked from one page, title refers to two people, no useful information Ohwell32 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Two for the price of one. Apparently, neither person is notable enough for an article (or a first name) on their own, but somehow, together they merit a page...not. Clarityfiend 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails Google test comprehensively (links back to WP) - If their work was that notable then I'd expect something from the turn of the last century to be better represented and detailed. Pedro |  Chat  10:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The subject they began is documented by tens of thousands of articles (if it was them--the discovery is usually ascribed to Morgan.) L. Doncaster seems from WebofScience to have been an important entomologist & geneticist, and is probably notable; however, I don't have any bio information at hand to start an article. It's GH Raynor, but I see fewer papers. But this pairing is odd, and is best deleted.

However, doing a ghit test on a 1906 paper is even sillier. DGG 03:24, 14 June 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.