Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Parker (author)

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 redirect to The Lightning Process. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Parker (author)

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

Alleged to a promotional piece for the man in question, not sure if it should be deleted or rewritten, so its here at afd for the community to weigh in on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support deleting the article. It reads like an advertisement for Parker, and whatever he has done that is notable is more than amply discussed in the Lightning Process article. Many references in the latter article are again used in this one. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any advice on how to improve, amend and rewrite this page - I believe that there is merit in this being included in addition to the Lightning Process page. I do not agree that many of the references are duplicated between the Lightning Process page and this - 28 of the 34 current references are not included on the Lightning Process page. Followthepenguins (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lightning Process article. The reason is that the sources here are about the LP, not about Parker. If there were significant sources about him then it might make sense to have a separate article about him, but many of the articles listed here do not even name him. Some that do are mere directory listings or even advertisements. If there is biographical information that is not in the LP article, it would make sense to include a short section about the inventor of the process in order to include those. LaMona (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lightning Process His notability and independent coverage seems to come solely from this topic.131.118.229.17 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 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.