Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Tanner

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. It seems unlikely that another relist would attract any more !votes. I have checked the references in the article and don't see the necessary coverage to establish notability. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tanner[edit]

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

Tagged for failing WP:GNG since March 2008. Also, there are lots of tags on the article such as WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The article seems to be written like an advertisement for the person. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, no real notability Gbawden (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's essentially a CV with WP:COATRACK of his "ideas" and no real claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The article was promotional and CV like, so I cut these parts out as best I could. I added a couple of source from HighBeam. He has published a couple of books with a coauthor and one received a substantial review. He does appear to the expert on digitization of ancient documents, so for that reason I believe he is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 23 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 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.