Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Snowden

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 keep. JForget 02:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Snowden

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

Written like a resumé and unsourced, tagged since 2008/2007 Pevos (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much indifferent on this one. I didn't put the material there and I have not edited it, not do I intend to. I do note however that this AfD followed immediately on from a content dispute at Spiral Dynamics where the above editor has violated both WP:3rr and WP:BRD. My real name is very easy to find as I link to my web site from my user page. Its just too much of a coincidence that this nomination followed that dispute. --Snowded ^TALK 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep That this page was nominated by somebody engaged in a content dispute on Wikipedia with the subject of the article gives an enormous appearance of impropriety, at the very least. BLP concerns mitigated in this case, as subject of the article does not take offense. Ray^Talk 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be bad-faith nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination looks like bad faith. Moreover, the extensive publication list absolutely meets WP:GNG and/or WP:AUTH. LotLE×talk 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Google results: 287, 170, 234 Although not 100% conclusive to show notability, shows nominator probably did not spend any time look for references. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (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.