 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 April 3. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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.
At first sight, this looked as though it was a long and complex case, which would be difficult to assess. However, on more detailed examination it turned out to be a long but not particularly complex case. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "delete" commentators (7:4 not counting the nominator), the situation is as follows. Arguments for deletion have given cogent reasons why the sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Arguments for keeping (ignoring ad hominem arguments and irrelevant accusations against editors) have largely either not addressed the notability guidelines (e.g. "There are enough sources") or have, as has been pointed out, misrepresented sources. (That is not to say that the misrepresentation was deliberate, but that makes no differences.) Reading the whole discussion, it is perfectly clear that the arguments for deletion are more substantive than those for keeping: therefore the result is delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)