Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph W. Eaton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph W. Eaton
This is very long. It is unformatted, unsourced, reads like a resume, contains all manner of information, almost certianly has sections copied from elsewhere, and it is very hard to read. This person appears to be notable, but the article is just hideous. I am unsure what to do about this. J Milburn 03:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination, for reasons cited by other editors. J Milburn 14:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like this article falls under the category of "Articles which may resemble crap but could contain a pearl". You don't delete pages if they are in bad quality but still have the potential to become an encyclopedia article. From your nomination, I can see that you gathered some information about the subject in the article, if nothing else, trim down and rewrite the article. Feel free to nominate it for deletion once you can reason that the article does not belong in the encyclopedia. I therefore suggest withdrawing this nomination for now. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong & Speedy Keep Notability guidelines quite clearly specify multiple reviews and awards a proof of notability. He was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship and his works have been reviewed multiple times, with citations of these reviews within the article (toward the end). The format is terrible but the article meets notability. Contrary to the nomination, this article is very well sourced -- just badly organized. --Kevin Murray 05:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep My sense is that the subject easily meets WP:BIO based on the "professor test" alone, but this article should be condensed and organized much better. Poor organization isn't enough of a reason for deletion. Tarinth 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep I feel that this article is quite awful the way it is right now, but that is no reason to delete it. It needs a lot of clean-up, as most of it is utter nonsense right now, but it seems to be notable and could become a decent article. One thing that bothers me is that it might violate WP:COPY. There is no way someone typed in all those references by hand, it is an obvious copy-and-paste article. --Sbrools (talk . contribs) 06:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
