Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lorimer

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. Courcelles 23:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Lorimer

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

Article is not notable; this seemed likely before, but now that claims have been checked, their nature is seen to be weak. Many of the claims on the website before today were obsolete or simply not notable; those that do have supporting websites identified today carry little weight - for example, All Hallows House Foundation is a registered charity, but it is behind with its returns; the University for Spirit Forum exists only as a one-page website with a membership form to be sent to another organisation (Wrekin Trust). It gives the impression of self-publicity - a common problem with biography of living persons. The bibliography appears real enough but is not particularly notable in itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability here. Worse, it smacks of self-promotion.--BlueonGray (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notable accomplishments; the red links are a bad sign. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Among all the non-notable organizations and the academic activity unlikely to pass WP:PROF, the best shot for notability appears to be WP:AUTHOR for his book published by a Penguin imprint. I did find one third party review [1] but I think it's not nearly enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 13 September 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.