Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Dunbavin


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Paul Dunbavin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pseudohistorian of no real note. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  08:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Catfish   Jim  and the soapdish  08:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk</b>) 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The whole thing about his work as described screams FRINGE at me. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete with the note that "this book resembles books by scholars" is one of the best examples of faint praise I've seen all week. Fringe Atlantis fan, a pseudohistorian who throws in some pseudophysics for flavor, with no indication that he has ascended to the level of notoriety necessary for such an individual to be wiki-notable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you go back to the version of the article before the sockpuppeeteer slanted it, you'll find the full citation for that book review, as well as the content that it originally supported.  If you think that it is praise at all, then you have not read the review.  Enjoy the review's final paragraph.  Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks like an artifact from a time when Wikipedia was a bit more lax with its standards for article creation. Would never pass WP:AfC today. jps (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * But since not all articles need to go through AfC, that is not stopping us getting more junk articles every day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I ran a couple of good faith news archive searches. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's spam and soapboxing. We are not a free web host for every fringe theory. I'm not editing this mess. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for the very good reasons made above. Additionally the opening section of the article (possibly unintentionally) comes across as promotion for a website and kindle books. Dunarc (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The works put forward by this writer are rarely noted at all, and the current article clearly misrepresents the few interactions with his works that have happened. He is no philologist, but that is the background he would need to make his absurd claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If I am reading the history of the article write, it was created in 2006, and maybe was created by Dunbavin, with the line "created by the author himself" that may be what that edit is telling us. There is a reason we ban creation of articles on oneself, and we need to find ways to enforce the ban better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. And I agree with John Pack Lambert's suggestion above, so as to, if anything, lighten a bit the AfD overload. -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.