Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Underdown

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 no consensus. So Why 07:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Underdown[edit]

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

Although entertaining and quite interesting in its own way, it's hard to see how this meets the notability threshold. Although there are some media appearances and comments, many of them seem incidental. A fair portion of citations also appear to be self-published. Shritwod (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've previously edited this article in minor ways. I would argue that it passes the threshold for notability, though perhaps not greatly exceeding that threshold. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in support of my belief that this page should be kept, I've started an effort to improve it at User:jmcgnh/sandbox/Jim Underdown. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The lack of WP:RS beyond incidental mentions fails the WP:GNG - GretLomborg (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 4 July 2017 (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.