Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Petrovic

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. Fails WP:BIO/WP:PROF. This is the fifth reincarnation of the article hence now protected from recreation except by an administrator. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Petrovic[edit]

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

Looks like blatant promotion to my eyes. Article has been speedy deleted for promotion 3 out of 4 times in the last 12 months. This version was tagged for speedy under g11 and an IP removed it, forcing AFD. A quick scan through the at a random sample of the numerous articles posted states nothing about the subject of the article, just writings on various subjects. The references section simply lists a couple of papers the subject has posted, so the biography appears to lack sources. Looks to fail the notability criteria in WP:PROF, though I might be wrong on the front. Dolescum (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and, considering the prior history, protect against recreation DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:BIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I am happy to make any edits or changes to make it comply with wikipedias regulations. There is no problem changing it so everyone is happy. Just give us the chance to sort it out please. There are more sources to back this page up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.209.214 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (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.