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. nominator withdrew Secret ^account 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Rip[edit]

Arie Rip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2007. No reliable sources found to verify the information (all the sources I could find were written by Rip himself) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see below

• Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently verify the contents of the article. Does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 20:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Keep, per the improvements and sourcing done by Silver seren. J04n(talk page) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He appears to be a major socio-technologist who is frequently cited or asked to contribute to mainstream nanotechnology books and publications like Nature. Silverseren^C 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GS h index around 33. A less than competent nomination. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep - he has "published extensively on various topics" and "introduced the widely used method of Constructive Technology Assessment".... Bearian (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am convinced from the added sources and comments here that the article should be kept. If J04n wishes to change to 'keep' then this could be closed early, otherwise I would suggest that it is kept open for the full 7 days -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:50, 20 September 2010 (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.