Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon W. Golomb

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Solomon W. Golomb

Totals:

Delete: <1> RickK

Keep : <11> JarlaxleArtemis, Zzyzx11, Nunh-huh, Samaritan, Megan1967, Capitalistroadster, Klonimus, Kappa, Charles Matthews, JIP, Stancel

~~Delete~~; is this professor really important enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia? → JarlaxleArtemis 01:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He has written a number of academic books. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, "this professor" is really important enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Rather more important than that, in fact. - Nunh-huh 01:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Okay. When I saw this article, the only contents it contained were "Currently Professor of Electrical Engineering at the University of Southern California". → JarlaxleArtemis 01:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- JarlaxleArtemis: Next time, you should look up Google et al. before you post articles on VFD. This mistake was the primary reason why my recent RFA ended with a 15/8/2 no consensus vote... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, nominators should check What links here - a well-meaning newcomers writes a very limited substub on legitimate redlinks, and if all we see is the weak substub and not the inbound links... (Strong keep, of course, not that it's any longer really in question...) Samaritan 03:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand. Notable. Megan1967 05:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. Notable engineering professor. Well done to the people who expanded the article. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable professor. I'm starting to think that every tenured professor at four-year or graduate school is worthy of inclusion. I might add that he invented the Golomb ruler Klonimus 07:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes the "average professor test" easily, and probably the new "tenure test". Kappa 09:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well known in recreational mathematics and a wanted page. Charles Matthews 09:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, very notable professor. — JIP | Talk 09:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, very notable professor. He helped inspire Tetris! And he received a medal and did many other things. Definitely deserves an article. Stancel 16:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable popularizer and investigator of polyominoes, Golomb rulers, and other areas of recreational mathematics. Gdr 20:39, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Close VfD

I think we have a concensus for inclusion. Klonimus 09:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have closed this discussion given the overwhelming keep vote, and the immense improvement to the article--nixie 09:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but no. While I agree that the article should be kept, the suggested procedures for 'speedy keeping' have been shot down by consensus on grounds of them being too easily abusable. Please wait for five days before closing a VfD. Radiant_* 13:26, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    - That's really daft--nixie 22:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not really. There should not be precedent for closing a VfD within nine hours of being created simply because there haven't been any delete votes so far. Similarly, I would strongly disagree to speedy a VfD after nine hours if it didn't get any keep votes. Five days isn't that long. R adiant _* 07:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
      - There have been cases where a plausible hoax would have been kept if the vote had been closed within a few hours of listing. --Carnildo 19:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I see it we have a unanamous decision to keep. No point in cluttering up VfD with articles about which a speedy decision for inclusion can be made. Klonimus 23:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Delete. There, that will keep it open for the appropriate length of time, as is decreed by consensus and protocol. WP:POINT (the last pointed at myself) Rick K 23:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        RickK do you really need to stoop to this level of immaturity? We all know you are a deletionist, but this is rediculous. Klonimus 04:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        No personal attacks, Klonimus. Also, a saying about a kettle comes to mind. R adiant _* 07:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
        
        Don't try to ramrod violations of procedure and I wouldn't have to. Rick K 05:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose closing discussion early. Keep the article, but wait the five days. MWOT. Andrewa 02:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be kept as well, but process should be followed. Wait five days, the article is in no danger of being deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.