Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Grove (Clean Language)
- 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 Merge to Clean Language. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- David Grove (Clean Language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. gets 5 gnews hits [1]. simply inventing clean language can be mentioned in 1 line in that article. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepa quick look on Google indicates that David Grove could be notable. Needs more research and should be left until that can be completed. Fits within several projects. NealeFamily (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- you have failed to address how a notability guideline is met. please provide actual sources, not WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that I haven't LibStar, but I don't have time at present to research this in any depth, alternatively I would support the Merge suggested by Stuartyeates, until such time as notable or not is established. I think a delete is premature. NealeFamily (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convention dictates that you
strikeyou previous !vote when you change your mind; this helps everyone see your current view. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convention dictates that you
- I agree that I haven't LibStar, but I don't have time at present to research this in any depth, alternatively I would support the Merge suggested by Stuartyeates, until such time as notable or not is established. I think a delete is premature. NealeFamily (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to paragraph in Clean Language, where the content can accumulate the references to prove notability, if they exist. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge He doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy apart from Clean Language, and there's a lack of other info to put in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:34, 6 April 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.