Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Thom

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. Coredesat 03:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Douglas Thom

Douglas Thom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Deletion nomination. Long, resume like article about an academic that shows no evidence that it passes the relevent guidelines for inclusion, such as WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:PROF Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of any information that any of the publications are notable. I admit I am influenced by the remarkable amount of spam, if anyone can deal with it and show a notable core, that would be very helpful.DGG (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in addition to the WP:N issue, the article was completely written as autobiography, violating WP:COI. ponyo (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, you may want to check out this page: User talk:216.26.218.85 Grsz11 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 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.