Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Rumley


 * 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 keep. Keep after rewriting article and removing resume-like content. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Rumley

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I don't believe this person meets the notability guidelines for an article. Not only is the article written like a resume, but a cursory Google search only brings up co-authored/ university course books and his faculty page. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Did a Google search and nothing useful came up. Even if something's found, I think this article would still have to be deleted per WP:TNT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the List of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 06:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity spam resume, not article-worthy. I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - badly formatted article yes, however notable geographer in relation to Indian Ocean studies and - check  https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/research?keyword=dennis%20rumley and https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/books?keyword=dennis%20rumley  JarrahTree 06:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I found enough published book reviews from this search to make a case for WP:AUTHOR, and he may also have a case for WP:PROF. But this is such a bad case of WP:LIKERESUME that I think WP:TNT applies, unless someone wants to take the effort to make a ground-up rewrite. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * keep definitely notable, its not a vanity as the article has been around for 15 years(since 2007), and subject to edits by multiple people during that time. According to afd guidelines nominating an article for deletion is not how an article goes through the clean process. Gnangarra 08:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * keep The article was terribly written, but I have revised fairly substantially and added citations. Based on the sources I found his research has been influential, and he was founding chief editor of a significant journal in his field, so is clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijil (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: It would help to review the work done on this article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-published professor (his publications page). Lamona (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Looks like a Keep based on the rewrite.--Jahaza (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2022 (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.