Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Watkins

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Watkins

Note: This initially "bundled AfD nomination" is definitely wrong. Just because two people are married does not mean their notability is identical. I removed the inclusion of Shelagh Watkins, but add a new nomination for editors to vote separately. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed part of the nomination by Deborah-jl because, in her nomination, she quoted from a private email I had sent earlier. Please do not do this. Private emails should remain private. Shelagh
  • Note: With respect to the most recent edit of the article, the following two references are not the same. The editors of the book, Neale's Disorders of the Foot, decided that the chapter, '"Structure and function of the foot'" should be divided into two new chapters in the 7th edition:
  • Watkins, J. (2006), "Structure and function of the foot", written at Edinburgh, in Lorimer, D.L., French, G., O'Donnell, M. & Burrow, J.G., Neale's Disorders of the Foot (7th ed.), Churchill-Livingstone.
  • Watkins, J. (2002), "Structure and function of the foot", written at Edinburgh, in Lorimer, D.L., French, G., O'Donnell, M. & Burrow, J.G., Neale's Disorders of the Foot (6th ed.), Churchill-Livingstone.
Shelagh
  • Delete. Also nominating Shelagh Watkins, bundled nomination. Essentially vanity/autobiography; Deborah-jl Talk 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nomination as the article creator appears to have changed her mind about the deletion. Deborah-jl Talk 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. Ruby 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)The nomination has changed after my vote, don't do that. Ruby 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Due to changes in the nomination and arguments below, Keep. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity.Blnguyen 05:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep as notable. Blnguyen 23:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep published over 70 times. Jcuk 08:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 10:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep James Watkins 483 google scholar hits if that is the same person, and Delete Shelagh Watkins -- Astrokey44|talk 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published several academic books with "good" publishers, including two allegedly well-known text books. Also some articles in major journals. Article could use some cleanup though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - seems sufficiently published. —Whouk (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep adequately published Dlyons493 Talk 21:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notably published scholar. Yamaguchi先生 02:12, 13 February 2006 (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.