Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Thorpe Priestley
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Philip Thorpe Priestley[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Philip Thorpe Priestley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:SIGCOV. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never ref'd correctly. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 09:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No hits at all in Jstor, Gscholar, Gnews. I don't think this scientist is hitting notability criteria here, with a lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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.