Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Norris (physiotherapist) (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 10 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 05:57, 10 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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. Tone 17:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Christopher Norris (physiotherapist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable - does not meet primary criterion of multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Reads as spammy and has been edited by an editor with the same name. Leuko Talk/Contribs 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it nessecary to delete this page. It is an advertisement, and just plain useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatiswrongwithwiki (talk • contribs) 00:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most or all of his books are by major publishers: Human Kinetics is the most important of the publishers in its field, and Butterworth and AC Black are very respectable. Some editing is certainly needed, though. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject and his books are lacking coverage from reliable independent sources. --Jmundo (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. By searching for the subject's name in combination with each of the book titles I could find only one review of his work. The subject works at a time and place and in a field where we could expect to be able to find more sources than this online. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO - no coverage in third-party sources. References in article are either irrelevant or directory listings. Tevildo (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most References are not even used correctly. Most Links posted on WP point to the page where the the text related to the article is at. Citing the entire site like swinden.gov.uk is unacceptable. --Cutno (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2009 (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.