Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Nicholls

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Nicholls

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Living subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, article appears to be promotional in nature, with a full directory of external links to self- and blog-publisheed works and interviews. Notability, primary sources, and proposed deletion tags removed by involved user without correcting issues or explanation. Yworo (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I pointed out on the Talk:Graham_Nicholls page I found 3 books by other authors with references to Graham Nicholls, as well as two books by Nicholls himself. He has also appeared in articles in The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Daily Express and on BBC radio and online. He has been a speaker or exhibitor at the Science Museum and The Cambridge Union Society, as well as other places. As far as I can see his inclusion is fair, as User:Ragesoss pointed out in 2009, stating "seems notable based on substantial coverage in linked interviews". There are some references to the subjects website (which is normal and not against policy) but the article does not seem overly promotional, could Yworo point out which elements he finds problematic and maybe we can remove or improve them? - Solar (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think this fits under the category "slightly weird people who we would rather delete the article because otherwise people might be tempted to take them or their discipline seriously". But I think if they are sufficiently prominent in their field (even if is not exactly academically rigorous) they comply with WP:BIO. Having said that, it still looks like a borderline case. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- œ ^™ 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.