Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Thompson (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. I suppose I could have closed this as Keep, but the fact that the newly added sources didn't get any specific review (and they're behind a paywall, so I couldn't look at them myself), and the minimal discussion in general, makes it hard for me to call this a real consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Thompson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Not cited by peers, did not originate a significant new concept, and there's no works, articles, or reliably-sourced reviews based on his books that I can find. The link padding in the article is a YouTube video, his personal website, the website of the Little Baddow History Centre which he personally administers, and some refs that simply list the books he's written. None of his work has been discussed in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. Article may be a mix of WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:COI but that's just a guess on my part. Amsgearing (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gameinfirmary (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does need cleanup/improvement. I did nothing more than add 4 or 5 reviews in major, general-circulation periodicals to one of his books, Philosophers Behaving Badly (2005). He passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies AUTHOR with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2018 (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.