User talk:Acf1271

Speedy deletion nomination of Gavin Francis


A tag has been placed on Gavin Francis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Syrthiss (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically, the idea is that writing books and travelling to lots of places doesn't make you important, and writing some in various periodicals doesn't either. The article didn't demonstrate why Gavin Francis deserved coverage in an encyclopedia, and none of the sources you used were able to demonstrate that he passed our wimpy inclusion standards for biographies.  Imagine that Britannica has the resources that we do — would they cover this guy?  If not, please don't try to create a new article on him; if so, please find stable and reliable sources (e.g. books or academic journal articles) that cover him in-depth.  I hope this answers your questions well enough, but please let me know if I didn't clarify something enough.  Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I repeat: "Imagine that Britannica has the resources that we do". My point is that the content doesn't conforms to the ridiculously low standards of WIkipedia.  Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)