|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unnotable page of a self-published author whose personal website (also doubling as his "publisher" site) makes the case fairly clearly for his lack of notability. Much puffery, but not much notability.
javascript:insertTags(' Copperbeech ( talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)',,)
And here I was thinking that policies were just a reflection of common practice. Obviously not. Kevin ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I found no evidence of notability for this topic, however the two dissenting editors claimed there was such evidence. Requests for links to this evidence were ignored. The closing admin states that evaluating such claims is not proper for the closing admin (see User_talk:Juliancolton#No_consensus). I feel that the true consensus (based on evidence actually provided, ignoring claims with no evidence) is to delete. This study is no more notable than millions of other studies which also lack the notability to have an encyclopedia article written about them. For an academic study from 20 years ago, it is relatively rarely cited. T34CH ( talk) 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Unnotable page of a self-published author whose personal website (also doubling as his "publisher" site) makes the case fairly clearly for his lack of notability. Much puffery, but not much notability.
javascript:insertTags(' Copperbeech ( talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)',,)
And here I was thinking that policies were just a reflection of common practice. Obviously not. Kevin ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
I found no evidence of notability for this topic, however the two dissenting editors claimed there was such evidence. Requests for links to this evidence were ignored. The closing admin states that evaluating such claims is not proper for the closing admin (see User_talk:Juliancolton#No_consensus). I feel that the true consensus (based on evidence actually provided, ignoring claims with no evidence) is to delete. This study is no more notable than millions of other studies which also lack the notability to have an encyclopedia article written about them. For an academic study from 20 years ago, it is relatively rarely cited. T34CH ( talk) 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |