Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Law

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 Delete. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Law[edit]

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

I'm nominating this because I can't find anything to suggest improvement (the article is orphaned as well) with my most successful searches here and here, nothing more than minor things and no significant links. I hope familiar users can attend to this if possible as he seems interesting and notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 06:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He possibly is notable, but I see no way to prove it, in the absence of major national awards. This is not uncommon with people in technology. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability in the rticle, just another engineer, no independent sources in the article, no coverage, Google scholar shows some papers, with not so many citations Kraxler (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2015 (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.