| Revision as of 13:25, 19 October 2007 editMasterpiece2000 (talk | contribs)13,003 edits →Richard H. Holm: Speedy keep.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:42, 8 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was | |||
| '''Speedy keep''' ] 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} | |||
| :{{la|Richard H. Holm}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | :{{la|Richard H. Holm}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> | ||
| This article does not assert notability and has no cited references. ] 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | This article does not assert notability and has no cited references. ] 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' — subject . Meets ], specifically criterion 6.--''']''' 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' — subject . Meets ], specifically criterion 6.--''']''' 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—] 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—] 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Strong keep'''. Named chair at Harvard. Member of and award from the National Academy of Sciences. . . Very clear pass of ]. —] 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Strong keep'''. Named chair at Harvard. Member of and award from the National Academy of Sciences. . . Very clear pass of ]. —] 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy keep''' as per David Eppstein. Why has this even been nominated? --] 07:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep''' as per David Eppstein. Why has this even been nominated? --] 07:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Speedy keep''' He is a notable scientist. We can find references. He is a notable chemist. ] 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep''' He is a notable scientist. We can find references. He is a notable chemist. ] 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :*This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' Clearly passes ]. Articles are not deleted just because they are not complete. ]<sub >]</sub> 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy Keep''' per all of the above. What is the rush to delete a two-day old article on a notable topic before giving time for people to add sources? --] 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Keep''' Clearly notable per ]. While it would be nice if new articles had their notability claims ] via ] when the article is first created, I think we all realize that a good number of articles are simply not finished, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are not notable. The article could use some work, yes, but the claims are verifiable. <small>]]]</small> 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 23:42, 8 February 2023
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep Acalamari 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Richard H. Holm
- Richard H. Holm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article does not assert notability and has no cited references. Illinois2011 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — subject won award. Meets WP:PROF, specifically criterion 6.--Agüeybaná 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Named chair at Harvard. Member of and award from the National Academy of Sciences. Highly cited papers. Honorary degree from U. Chicago. Very clear pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as per David Eppstein. Why has this even been nominated? --Crusio 07:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep He is a notable scientist. We can find references. He is a notable chemist. Masterpiece2000 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:PROF. Articles are not deleted just because they are not complete. Wstaffortalk 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per all of the above. What is the rush to delete a two-day old article on a notable topic before giving time for people to add sources? --Itub 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable per WP:PROF. While it would be nice if new articles had their notability claims verifiable via reliable sources when the article is first created, I think we all realize that a good number of articles are simply not finished, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are not notable. The article could use some work, yes, but the claims are verifiable. Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.