Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Le Fanu


 * 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. WP:SNOW joe deckertalk to me 18:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

James Le Fanu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Chemistryfan, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, and this guy could be notable or or he could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Columnist in mainstream newspaper, notable for his unusual viewpoint, and there are some third party sources. I understand the rationale for deletion, but this particular one can stay and be improved. By the way, I think the surname is Le Fanu, not Fanu. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep He has gotten some significant coverage in major sources like the BBC and New Scientist. Article needs copy-editing. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some WP:GNG in news and a well cited book. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination.  A proper nomination respects the time of the editors being asked to participate at the AfD.  Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD.  If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2011 (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.