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 keep The feature in BioBusiness seems to push him over the WP:BIO/WP:N edge. JoshuaZ 23:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lounsbury[edit]

)

There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Michael Lounsbury for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are unbelievable. This is a well noted academic and the stub entry includes only (and quite a bit of) objective evidence of notability: many publications, notable awards, media coverage, and editorship of highly ranked journals. It far exceeds any threshold of notability indicated by the wiki policy. So what are your grounds for assessment? I object strenuously. Annelson 18:00 13 August 2007 (UTC) — Annelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Easy, speedy keep. Appears to be a bad nom although I will assume good faith, article clearly has verified and reliable sources listed within it. Also, WP:N is a guideline, and is not in and of itself enough to delete something. MrPrada 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; and easy decision to keep!. No plausible rationale for the nom. WP:N is indeed a guideline and the article is clearly neutral and has objective, verifiable sources that clearly indicate notability. msacks11 08:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC) — Msacks11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No doubt a keeper! I agree with aforementioned objections. I am relatively new to this community, but this academic bio accords with most of which I have seen. In addition, I do not understand Jreferee's rationale. The article contains INDEPENDENTLY RELIABLE, OBJECTIVE and VERIFIABLE information that indicates notability. A puzzling nom. Phirsch 6:19 15 August 2007 (UTC) — Phirsch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep. There are strong signs here that he is likely to be notable: the named professorship at Cornell, for instance. And unlike many articles on academics which are either too shy (just saying so-and-so teaches subject at university) or too prolix (copying the whole vita) this one strikes a good balance. But it really needs reliable secondary sources of notability. —David Eppstein 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It merely needs secondary sources to establish the awards. And that was the only objection of the nom. question--did the nom even try to look for it? We're supposed to be improving articles, and only bringing here the ones that cannot be improved. DGG (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see enough source material for a full article here. Awards or no, we can't write an article from blurbs (especially mainly from sources affiliated with the subject), and I can't find anything more substantial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:59, 19 August 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.