Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Kyrle Down

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kyrle Down[edit]

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

This amateur Christian archaeologist, parochial media promoter, and obscure author seems to me to fail WP:BIO not for the least of which that his media has not received the independent, third-party notice we generally require for promoters of fringe theories in order to be included at Wikipedia. The article was started by someone related to the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet GNG or WP:ACAD. Minimal Ghits VASterling (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 5 GBooks hits, 4 of which are from Books LLC, which publishes copies of Wikipedia pages. Edward321 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improve He seems to be fairly notable in Australia as the founder of a popular Archaeological magazine and organization. I think we should hold off on deleting it lest we succumb to WP:Systematic bias.--Gniniv (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is not a victim of systematic bias on Wikipedia. It's not part of the other three billion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are too slender. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Too few sources to improve up to notability Vrivers (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2010 (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.