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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 10:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Madore[edit]

Non notable mathematician and amateur computer scientist with no major academic work done. (This is not a personal attack, I'm a personal friend of his.) David.Monniaux 00:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not quite A7, but close. --CastAStone 00:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Interestingly, he is listed as the inventor of computer language Unlambda. Unlambda survived a VfD about a year ago. One could argue that this warrants keeping him. On the other hand, the link to Unlambda's homepage is dead. Perhaps better to delete both the inventor and the language, if infact dead. --Gaff ^talk 00:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Google search on unlambda gives 36,900 votes. Have to disagree with nom's claim that no major academic work. I vote keep.--Gaff ^talk 00:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlambda is not an academic work. It is a computer implementation of a well-known academic concept (SKI combinators, a form of lambda calculus without lambdas) that David originally wrote as a half-joke. David.Monniaux 02:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Must admit I'm dum as a rock on this topic. seems to me that even if it was a "half-joke" that is widely used that may warrant his article being spared from the scrap heap.--Gaff ^talk 10:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not used for anything practical. You do not program anything practical in Unlambda, unless you're doing it especially to make a point that all Turing-complete languages are equivalent. David would surely tell you the same. :-) David.Monniaux 17:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep <pseud>Surfaces de del Pezzo sans point rationnel sur un corps de dimension cohomologique un seems notable to me</pseud> (well it might if I knew anything about the area). Seriously, [1] isn't a completely nn publication list. Dlyons493 Talk 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With that kind of criterion, any person working in higher education or research, including myself, deserves an article. I don't think I deserve an article. David.Monniaux 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you do! - [2] and working at ENS cannot be dismissed out of hand. I feel the Madore article is not clearcut - there's some notable work being done in his general area but I'm not competent to judge if his is. Then Unlambda gives him wider claims to notability. So I'd give him the benefit of any doubt - wiki is not paper. Dlyons493 Talk 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of number of papers and numbers of citations, my publication list is better than that. And I certainly don't warrant an article. And I work for an establishment that can claim two Nobel Prize winners in the last five years, but that makes them notable, not me. Average Earthman 18:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeep notable for writing Unlambda. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, writing Unlambda grants him some degree of fame or notoriety. Kappa 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not quite sure this meets the bar. Gamaliel 09:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• what bar? please be specific.--Gaff ^talk 10:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 17:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What if the article just said This guy wrote Unlambda. Would that be enough or should his name be absorbed into the article on Unlamba where he could be listed as its dreator. I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how important a computer language he wrote. Any experts want to weigh in?--Gaff ^talk 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keeep His Unlamba work is notable. Banes 10:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on above. Marskell 16:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article is linked to by several pages. It needs to be expanded, but it does have notability. Jesse 18:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain because I am personally involved. The argument I see in favor of "keep" is: Unlambda is definitely worth having a page (I certainly didn't expect it to be so popular when I created it, but there it is), and I generally find it good policy to have a page (if only a stub) for the author or inventor of any work of any kind mentioned in the Wikipedia itself. The argument I see in favor of "delete" is: the category "French mathematicians" (don't know how to link to this!), as it is, is utterly ridiculous (some people a zillion times more important than I am do not have a listing there). On the whole, I tend to think that the page shouldn't have been written but, now that it is, it might as well remain (basically, there were more important pages to write, and there are also more important pages to delete!). Just to clarify two points: I did not write the page (and I do not know who did), and David.Monniaux is indeed a friend of mine. --Gro-Tsen 19:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from a newbie: what is the value of a weak keep vote other than to leave the administrator who gets stuck making the final call feeling like they are out on a limb? Shouldn't votes be either keep, delete, or abstain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 03:33, October 16, 2005

That is a good question, but I don't see it as one being answered in a single AfD. I personally don't like them either, but you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: we have a stub on brainfuck's creator, and Unlambda is equally notorious notable. Haeleth 20:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but expand stub. Unlambda makes him notable. - Sensor 02:55, 20 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.