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.

Matt Kaufmann[edit]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), follows procedure and consensus regarding other individuals who have the same award. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kaufmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

no assertion of notability. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, there's some RS coverage including the award he won. I think the award asserts notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 17:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Along with the award, he has several highly cited publications. But all the ones I found are co-authored with Moore, so it's hard to tell how much credit should go to Kaufmann. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, keep. Everyone else who's won that award has an article. Whilst I think it's a pretty weak claim to notability, it is a claim and his work in improving Nqthm seals the deal. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:11, 12 March 2008 (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.