The result was Keep. Although the "deletes" by number outweigh the keeps, the keeps have used policy, have provided potential sources, and have provided valid rationale as to why this should be kept. Saying "delete per nom", when the nom is clearly neutral, is rather unhelpful. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. Article was PRODed but I'm not sure a professor being deleted would be entirely uncontroversial. Reason on PROD was: "No evidence of meeting the threshhold of WP:PROF." As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer ( talk) 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete I don't think he's meets WP:PROF, especially regarding "a significant and well-known academic work". Noble Story ( talk) 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Although the "deletes" by number outweigh the keeps, the keeps have used policy, have provided potential sources, and have provided valid rationale as to why this should be kept. Saying "delete per nom", when the nom is clearly neutral, is rather unhelpful. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. Article was PRODed but I'm not sure a professor being deleted would be entirely uncontroversial. Reason on PROD was: "No evidence of meeting the threshhold of WP:PROF." As this is a procedural nom, I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer ( talk) 22:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete I don't think he's meets WP:PROF, especially regarding "a significant and well-known academic work". Noble Story ( talk) 08:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply