Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mel Thompson

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 (WP:NPASR). The nominator failed to state the reasons why the page should be deleted. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Thompson

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

Notability Wikimostafa (talk) 11:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This entry is notable and should not be deleted. Esmatly (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Wikimostafa Can you expand a little on your reasons for bringing this for AFD and particularly on the results you got on WP:BEFORE, I ask because it's a pretty impressive of books. claims and usually for a an author of multiple books it is fairly easy to find book reviews that validate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2015 (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.