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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Curry

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability for a Wiki article not apparent in the article. See also; this article's first nomination for deletion. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor academic with no real attempt at asserting notability. I gather the last time around he was the butt of some embarrassment but this version doesn't even mention it and in any case it wasn't deemed embarrassing enough to save the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. With GS cites all under 10 fails WP:Prof#C1 by a large margin. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think that salting is not necessary; nevertheless, I would welcome the deletion of this article. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—is it not possible that this and then this, and then finally this are enough to base an article on? i agree, of course, that the current article is ridiculous and should be blanked, and also that his scientific work gives no traction whatsoever for a notability argument. however, since ghits on the putatively misreported story are spread far and wide across the world, and articles explaining the other side of the kerfuffle are not so easy to find, is it not possible that we should have a short article explaining what happened? after all, it did happen, and people might want to know about it. if there were a suitable target, i'd suggest a redirect to it; something like Controversy over Oliver Curry and the Direction of Human Evolution or something like that that's better phrased? but perhaps that ain't notable either, which is why i'm not taking a position yet.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to be saying anything that was not said a century earlier by H. G. Wells and not much notice seems to have been taken of what he did say. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E.Ampersandestet (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: Inserting comment misplaced by EntropicPonderer at 21:48, September 28, 2011, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Curry(2nd nomination): "The article Oliver Curry is a very valid article for Wikipedia. The call for deletion meets none of the criteria of the deletion policy." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User EntropicPonderer created the page. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I am not the only one who caught that. Ampersandestet (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my opinion as nominator. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2011 (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.