Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/John Brignell - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 21:31, 21 August 2007 (→[]: earlier version). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:31, 21 August 2007 by MastCell (talk | contribs) (→[]: earlier version)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

John Brignell

John Brignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable; fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The only secondary sources ever provided are critical, and consist of links to Tim Lambert's blog and to brief coverage in the Skeptic's Dictionary. This is not "non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources." The article is a WP:COATRACK and POV fork to present Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. MastCell 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • weak delete, based on Brignell being certainly less notable than Lambert William M. Connolley 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There's literally nothing here. Primary sources like Brignell's self-published books and his personal web page can't sustain an article. wikipediatrix 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is poor, and POV-biased against the subject of the biography. But the solution is to fix it. The initial version was actually quite good. Unfortunately, the solid informational content has been deleted, and replaced by almost nothing at all, except a couple of blatantly POV attacks on the subject of the biography. My vote is against deletion; rather, the article should be restored to its earlier, substantive, NPOV form. NCdave 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: While the earlier version is indeed longer, it contains no additional secondary sources. It merely expounds at greater length on Brignell's views - so it suffers from the same lack of notability and compounds that problem by functioning as a POV fork and WP:COATRACK by regurgitating Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. MastCell 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Categories: