Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Apocryphicity/Tony Burke (Canadian Biblical Scholar)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. — xaosflux  Talk 15:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Apocryphicity/Tony Burke (Canadian Biblical Scholar)

 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * (Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) North America1000 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Old userspace draft for what seems to be an associate professor. I don't think he'd pass a WP:PROF test but this version has no source. It's so detailed it's possible but it's also possibly a WP:TNT situation so I don't know if it should be kept or deleted as excessively promotional. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Plenty of ghits leading to sources, this person has a very good chance of being found to be suitable for an article, with or without WP:PROF. Keep.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But this version is entirely a BLP with no sources. A new version would literally be a creation from scratch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here (http://www.tonyburke.ca/ & http://www.tonyburke.ca/about/) are two pages that more than source it all. They are not independent, but that do provide a strong case for meeting WP:PROF.  NB. WP:PROF is probably the easiest of notability subguidelines to meet, and also note that RfCs have emphatically affirmed that notability tests are not for userspace.  As everything is reliably sources, and it is all academic, I don't that it is excessively promotional.  Sure, some independent third party would help with the tone, and with getting it to mainspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor hasn't been here since 2009. Even if there's potential here, what is the point is keeping it in that userspace? Moving to draftspace at least makes some sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That may well be a good thing to do editorially. A couple of independent sources will easily justify a move to mainspace.  Disagree with WP:TNT, this draft could easily be worked with.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once again, literally nothing here can be retained; there's nothing to do editorially, unless you write an entirely new page, and that's the whole idea of TNT.  Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and User:Nyttend. Moreover, this page is more like a résumé-style promotion, possibly COI as well. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:50, 29 June 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.