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. Courcelles 17:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George F. Taylor

[edit]

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

Very little evidence that this amateur historian is notable; independent coverage is limited to a 43-word newspaper obituary, and a passing mention here. As the article was written by a user banned for filling articles with fake content, original research and overinflating the importance of minor characters, I think deletion is the more pragmatic solution. bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, also I couldn't find any trace of coverage to sustain the maintainability of the subject's article into wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found. He's not a BLP. The Times obituary isn't an obituary written by journalist, it's a death notice written by his family. Note that there was also a George Francis Taylor CBE (1903-1979) who was a banker-cum-SOE officer [1] Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article falsely claims that Taylor (1971) is "autoritative" on its subject, giving Kaizer as reference. Nothing of the kind is indicated eith by Taylor or Kaizer; Kaizer merely acknowledges that Taylor was the first to take a few photographs of previously unknown Roman temples. Taylor (1971) is only a notable source in being the first to document these temples (i.e, at the entries for those temples), NOT as a a general, authoritative source of anything.Arildnordby (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2013 (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.