Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Alured Faunce


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Alured Faunce

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An autobiography that doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC as far as I am aware. Faunce created the article as before abandoning the account and moving to. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject might be notable but the sources are mostly print and therefor cannot be easily verified. Normally a presumption of good faith would attach but in this case there is overwhelming evidence that the article is the autobiography of a naked COI. Under the circumstances I think in the interest of encyclopedic integrity the best course of action is to blow it up and start over with a non-COI editor. Maybe run the next version through AfC? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Pilgrims in medicine, currently in more than 750 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Not as strong in terms of GS cites. I agree with Ad Orientem though, and reduced the article to a stub. While COI is not a reason for deletion, the article shoud grow COI-free.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it a significant impact or is he just really full of himself?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. In particular, WP:AUTHOR asks for multiple published reviews of the author's books, not just library holdings. I searched but only found self-published ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GNG and WP:BIO fail.  Rinfoli   { *Di§cu$ with me"# } 14:36, 18 April 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.