Richard A. Karp ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Procedural nomination. This article was speedied by Orangemike ( talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Quuxplusone ( talk · contribs) has been urging me to undelete it and take it to AfD instead. I have no strong opinion on the article itself; I think the A7 was reasonable, and I also think the request to grant a full AfD is reasonable. But rather than taking it on myself to undo the administrative actions of another admin I think it would be better to go through proper channels, so I'm bringing the request here: please undo the speedy deletion and take this to AfD. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply

• Restore and list at AFD. Minor assertion of IoS, let the community make the call. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore and list at AFD. Although the claims are very weak, it does make a "credible claim of significance or importance" (see A7). It would likely not survive an WP:AFD, but I think it deserves a shot. Justin W Smith ^talk/ _stalk 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore: Not an A7 case.-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore - A7 doesn't parse grades of importance or significance. Did the speedy admin not read "Between 1974 and 1975, while a graduate student at Stanford, he worked with Vint Cerf on an early implementation of the Transmission Control Protocol, or TCP."? That indicates why its subject is important or significant and if an admin can't make such a clear conclusion, there are plenty of others to work than speedy deletions. It further is wrong to make Quuxplusone grovel. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Response - that fell under WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS, to my way of thinking; but I'm not gonna break into tears if I'm reversed. -- Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
    • Response - If the only counter-A7 claim was that Karp was a grad student of Vint Cerf, then I'd be on Orangemike's side (although unilateral speedy deletion would still be inappropriate). It was that plus the similarity of names and fields that makes me believe an article (and disambiguation hatlinks) is worthwhile. Anyway, how many Restore !votes do we need before someone closes this review? mutter mutter -- Quuxplusone ( talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore and list at AFD. An A7 should be overturned in favour of AfD by default on a reasonable request by any editor in good standing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply
• Restore and list at AFD per SmokeyJoe. Jclemens ( talk) 22:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC) reply