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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw[edit]

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw (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)

Article reads like a vanity page. Notable items do not have independent verification. The numerous citations either do not mention subject, are not independent, or not notable. Additionally, the article has been heavily edited by the subject. Epachamo (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like pretty heavy overlap with other websites [1]. The text from "mormonscholarstestify.org" was added here after the page there was dated, so I don't think that is reverse copyvio, though some of the other items flagged by Earwig might be. XOR'easter (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is some of the worst refbombing I have ever seen. I removed the most obviously bad ones trying to get a sense of what's really here, but it's still a pile of yikes. That would go in as a "comment" rather than "delete" were it not for the copyvio. Here's September 2010 on another site: [2]; 83.7% similarity to our current article, which only looked like this [3] at the time. He may well be notable but we're going to have to WP:TNT it in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per the !vote just above, we're in a WP:TNT situation. The page is nearly nothing but talking up low- to mid-level accomplishments; it would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic, even granting that those add up to academic wiki-notability, which I am still doubtful of. And then there's the copyvio problem. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2022 (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.