Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Wald

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes are existent. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wald

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

No hits on Google News to establish WP:N, and I couldnt find any WP:RS hits on Google about the man himself (rather than his research) to establish notability either. A BBC article about some of his research on age as an indicator of mortality or something, but that was it. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely sorry if I am being thick but where, please, can I read up on how notability must be established for "the man himself (rather than his research)"? I'm baffled by this - he is famous for his research, as are other researchers - how does that fail WP:N? Is it like he would only be N if he also had a big collection of budgies, or had played the sax solo on "Baker Street"? I'm sorry, I'm really not deliberately trying to be stupid but I'm a bit baffled by this. If someone is a painter do we say they can't only be notable for their paintings? Apologies - it is obviously well-known to the nominator but I'd be really grateful for a steer on policy - it's not an area that I know well and I find this very surprising. Thanks! LBN (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Truly bizarre "reasoning" offered for deletion. Of his co-authored paper, a then-British Medical Journal editor said it was "possibly 'more than 50 years since we published something as important'". [1] There's also "Birth defect test guru knighted", an entirely separate basis for notability. UseTheCommandLine needs to read WP:Notability (academics). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've been digging through contract pharma research shill articles for the last month and am perhaps a bit quick on the draw. Apologies. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no harm done. In fact, his article could use a bit of beefing up, something I'll try to get to tomorrow. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. Yes, that article could definitely use a birthday; plus I didn't know where to find WP:Notability (academics) and now do (aargh, experienced editor on Ignorance Parade); and this is a neat and very reasonable resolution all round. Thank you both for the civilized approach. Cheers LBN (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- "Please be more careful in wielding the delete stick" lesson learned -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being knighted is considered notable in and of itself. Quis separabit? 15:34, 19 February 2013 (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.