Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter MacDonald (computer programmer)
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:21, 9 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 05:21, 9 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 speedy close; wrong forum. MfD already opened: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter MacDonald (computer programmer). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter MacDonald (computer programmer) (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Peter MacDonald (computer programmer)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has not been touched in four months, it is still way too short and not got enough sources. It should now be considered to be erased. Also this biggest contributions cam from user: Pcmacdon I am not 100% certain but from the username could this person be associated with the subject of the article. Either way its been 4 months and still does not meat a decent standard Ruth-2013 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is the first nomination of an article from the Article Incubator that I recall seeing. Is this the correct venue for this? I don't think it is the purpose of AfD to comment on the POTENTIAL encyclopedia-worthiness of POSSIBLE FUTURE ARTICLES, only to make rulings on articles in main space. Moreover, four months does not seem an inordinate amount of time for a work in progress to sit outside of main article space for lack of work and sources and this seems to be a hasty nomination, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request - Can we get a quick administrator ruling on this matter? Carrite (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reject nomination as not in the article space. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:41, 3 August 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.