Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Gilberthorpe: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:16, 9 December 2009

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

Keep - I'm not sure what the problem is. Article seems adequately sourced, subject seems notable enough. --MelanieN (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Comment. It would be useful to have a substantive reason for deletion from the nominator, so that we know what we are discussing. There is no procedure that compels anyone to nominate any article for deletion, so "procedural nom" is meaningless. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why is this article nominated for deletion? It seems to fit the criteria and specifications.(talk)

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 *'''Keep''' - I'm not sure what the problem is. Article seems adequately sourced, subject seems notable enough. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 21:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 *'''Comment'''. It would be useful to have a substantive reason for deletion from the nominator, so that we know what we are discussing. There is no procedure that compels anyone to nominate any article for deletion, so "procedural nom" is meaningless. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - Why is this article nominated for deletion? It seems to fit the criteria and specifications.([[User talk:qtmonky|talk]])