MrLukeDevlin

Welcome!

Hello, MrLukeDevlin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Stalwart111 05:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Succulent lamb for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Succulent lamb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Succulent lamb until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. C679 11:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hi MrDevlin. Just having a wee gander at your talk page and couldn't help noticing the deletion of 'succulent lamb'. I'd never heard of that phrase before, it's a great story, shame it got deleted. For what it's worth I would've voted keep. Hope you can find some way of slipping references to it into the relevant articles, I think it deserves a mention somewhere on WP. Cheers. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hillbillyholiday I did my best! The page had many high quality citations of reliable sources, and the article was even cited by Channel 4 chief correspondent Alex_Thomson_(journalist)! See here [[1]] Unfortunately articles such as these tend to attract attention from people with highly prejudiced outlooks so it didn't stand a chance. You can see from the deletion log that consensus wasn't reached and many of the arguments for deletion were demonstrably false: but it was deleted anyway. Hmm. Anyway maybe one day we'll get to the bottom of Campbell's ordination :-) cheers MrLukeDevlin (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the discussion. I thought the quote from Thomson should've settled it. It may be worth having another go at creating it if the word keeps getting used. And I don't see the harm of mentioning it at Jim Traynor. I had a neologism speedily deleted (to be fair, the word's not caught on), but I still keep a copy hidden away in a box. fffhp. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

One reason for the name change (and the previous deletion of the article) might've been that people kept deliberately linking Campbell with a murderer by the same name on Wikipedia. (eg. [2]) -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Placebo studies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Placebo studies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Placebo studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)