Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wesley Kingston Whitten

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 speedy keep, per criterion 2: "unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." I will leave it to admins and/or other users in good standing to warn or sanction the nominator. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Kingston Whitten[edit]

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

Nonsense article promoting non-important historical professor with zero Notability. Article fails Neutrality and references are unreliable. Zachtron (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ - Article's creator totally disregarded Neutrality and Notability guidelines. Article is a biased "promotional cheer-leading puff piece" about non-notable and unimportant individual. Zachtron (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 2. Snotbot t • c » 10:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
????? The discoverer of an important effect that was named after him? With an obit in IVF news and his bio described in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and in Historical Records of Australian Science? With 68 articles in the Web of Science, cited over 3000 times and with an h-index of 28 (despite the fact that his last article was published in 1996)? And then you say "references are unreliable" and "non-notable and unimportant individual"??? You deserve a trout! Speedy keep. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Retaliatory‎ tit for tat nomination. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Randykitty. (However, trouting is for experienced Wikipedians.) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I call for a speedy close of this disruptive AfD. This article was created by User:I am One of Many, who earlier nominated Rocket Records for deletion, an article created by User:Zachtron. Zachtron should receive a stern warning or perhaps even a block for disruptive editing. (And given that Zachtron claims to be an experienced editor, I think a trout is justified) --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obvious retaliatory nomination. Sanction/trout as necessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:26, 2 May 2013 (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.