Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward L. Todd

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. No prejudice towards renomination since we had limited participation here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward L. Todd

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems not to pass WP:ACADEMIC based on information contained in article. No significant GHits for biographical information. Zujua (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional works are published as E.L. Todd [1], which makes it necessary to search by subject keywords +Todd; no indication if this is the individual with matching lifespan buried as a lieutenant ~Jr. at Arlington [2], but a Col. Edwin L. Todd of the 10th & 7th Air Forces postdates the academic and complicates basic searches. Dru of Id (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the content appears to be a straight rip from the description of the Edward L. Todd papers at the Smithsonian Institution, the fact that Todd's named papers ARE at the Smithsonian Institution strikes me as sufficient justification for encyclopedic biography. Keeping under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES strikes me as completely appropriate — use common sense to build the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added some more sources to the article, one of which (an entry in a dictionary of entomology) may carry some weight towards notability. I'm undecided on the case myself: his publications have only double-digit citations, but taxonomy is a low-citation field. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles on Noctuidae that have citations to "Todd", which I would have to guess is this one, but the citations are all so fragmentary that it's hard to tell for sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2012 (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.