Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Compton-Burnett

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Compton-Burnett

I'm pretty sure it is a copy vio (but I can't trace it) huglye POV Geni 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. It does seem like a copy vio but if we can't trace it then it seems unfair to delete it. Admittedly the article needs work but it's well tagged for that. Agentsoo 12:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. — RJH 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or shorten it dramatically. Its too long, about an obscure person and very badly written. PhatRita 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason for deletion. Kappa 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Is that the best reason available for keeping it? -Splash 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 1) Being dead doesn't make you notable. 2)The article does not make any claim of notability. 3)Having a theory or two doesn't count as notability, anyone can think those up. No reason for keepletion. -Splash 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite - badly written but I remember the content from a course I took last year while in a naturopathy degree program. The concept is 'badly' explained, it looks more like someone's notes with some text attached. I noted there is a couple of loose references in the article. --203.12.172.254 07:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)berniebear

• Comment. I believe 203.12.172.254 was the original "author" of the article. See User talk:203.12.172.254. Perhaps he/she could clear up the source of the information that he/she provided but thinks "looks more like someone's notes with some text attached". Edwardian 07:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If the original "author" of the article cannot fess up to writing it, it should go. Plus copy vio, VERY poorly written, and non-notable subject as others have mentioned. Edwardian 07:42, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.