The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Sourcing is very weak here. Does not demonstrate the level of independent, notable coverage required from multiple reliable sources to just a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG rules. DreamGuy ( talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There's some kind of weird OWN stuff happening on that page. No changes are accepted at all. Thus, there's an "info box" that contains just a name and a link to his personal website. There's stuff about a boat voyage, and a link to his free book about it. And the sentence about moving to Oregon and living in isolation. The only notable thing in the article is the authorship of Apple Writer, and some of the awards. Only 4 people on WP are shown to have the Vollum. WP doesn't show anyone else for scientist of the year. (Editors protecting the Lutus Page from any edit should really be contributing to the wider project by sourcing and writing articles about those awards. The Vollum seems like it might be notable.) Nothing else is notable at all. This is just a heavily padded vanity article. Removing padding leaves a tiny stump. Sourcing is weak. Notability is tenuous at best. Editors exhibit problematic OWN and other behaviours. 31.126.206.226 ( talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Sourcing is very weak here. Does not demonstrate the level of independent, notable coverage required from multiple reliable sources to just a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG rules. DreamGuy ( talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply
There's some kind of weird OWN stuff happening on that page. No changes are accepted at all. Thus, there's an "info box" that contains just a name and a link to his personal website. There's stuff about a boat voyage, and a link to his free book about it. And the sentence about moving to Oregon and living in isolation. The only notable thing in the article is the authorship of Apple Writer, and some of the awards. Only 4 people on WP are shown to have the Vollum. WP doesn't show anyone else for scientist of the year. (Editors protecting the Lutus Page from any edit should really be contributing to the wider project by sourcing and writing articles about those awards. The Vollum seems like it might be notable.) Nothing else is notable at all. This is just a heavily padded vanity article. Removing padding leaves a tiny stump. Sourcing is weak. Notability is tenuous at best. Editors exhibit problematic OWN and other behaviours. 31.126.206.226 ( talk) 10:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply