Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Nichols


 * 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.  → Call me  Hahc  21  03:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Nichols

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable parapsychologist, could only find one parapsychology blog that mentions him any detail. Has promoted fringe claims about ghost hunting, reports of his "theories" only on ghost hunting blogs, not mentioned in any reliable books. No critical coverage of his claims. Goblin Face (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Just a note - the user who created this article in 2008  may have copied some of the information from a parapsychology blog, check his user page there was copyright concerns. Goblin Face (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, an article on a WP:FRINGE topic, sourced to publications by Nichols himself and to fringe sources failing WP:RS. No evidence of significant coverage by mainstream reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and all the relevant notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree, sources are poor. Much of the article is WP:OR, and some of it is off-topic. We usually, edit these aspects, but I don't see any additional redeeming sources after a quick search. Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Delete for lack of independent, reliable (and mainstream) sources that cover the subject in-depth. No evidence of passing WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - nary a reliable source is in the article; they all seem to be self-published or vanity texts. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (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.