This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP: 4k, 1d from original speedy (signed in user). Note taken of Tony Sidaway's point; today is 5 days. -Splash 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was tagged for speedy delete with a reason given as being "not notable". Moving this to VfD to determine if the subject is considered notable. No Vote --Allen3 ^talk 16:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand — To me at least, he seems quite notable, and this should not be deleted, speedy or otherwise.[1] — RJH 18:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He's a legitimate scientist. With time the article will be expanded. -- Judson 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've expanded the article slightly. More than enough to establish notability. (3 cover articles in Science seems more than enough for a scientist.) Can someone more savvy than myself remove the Speedy tag from the page? Dystopos 00:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I should remark on the circumstances of this VfD. It's one of several that were tagged on the bogus speedy justification "not notable". Some of them were wrongly speedied, and I have restored those. Also the person who listed this on VfD didn't insert the VfD notice in the article. I have added it now, and whoever closes this discussion should take into account the fact that it wasn't properly tagged until 18th. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:16, 18 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.