Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Reid Moir

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 delete by Ironholds (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G5, article created by a banned user. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Reid Moir

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

Procedural nomination: Article created by User:Earthisalive, a confirmed sockpuppet, someone who was overly friendly to Big Bang denialists and Darwin deniers, and other unorthodox theories. Article could be fine, article could be a PR-piece, topic could be notable or or could be not notable. I'm nominating so we can have the debate and properly vet, cleanup, or delete these articles as appropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a bad article, and seems to pass WP:BIO. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C3 as FRS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Fellow of the Royal Society - sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C3. Nsk92 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is incoherent as there is no such thing as a procedural AFD of this sort - AFD is not cleanup and articles should not be nominated because you don't like the author. Please see our editing policy which tells us that improvement of new articles is ordinary and routine editing. Warden (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep or Procedural closure Invalid nomination. After a speedy closure, article can then be speedily and properly nominated, if that is actually warranted. Being a sockpuppet makes no difference to AfD. If the article can be G5'ed, it should be speedy deleted, even if the topic is notable and sourced. Unscintillating (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Article created by a banned user. So tagged. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2011 (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.