Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Overbeek (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW, references added article expanded (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Overbeek

version at time of AFD nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 02:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

procedural nomination Article found as an expired PROD though it had previously been considered here. PROD nominator states: Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF standards, nor is it demonstrated that his political activities are notable. Delete. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Computer science has been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I've added a couple of tags to the article. Seems to be even more notable now than he was before, at least talking about the books that he wrote. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Google Scholar indicates his papers are often cited hundreds of times. He was on a major USG task force almost 20 years ago. The article doesn't even mention his business career. According to this in 1972 his posited theorem construct replaced one that had been the standard in the field. He certainly meets the "major contributions recognized by his peers" standard and definitely deserves a better article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GS shows dozen ofarticle, included multiple ones in PNAS and Nature, with many hundreds of citations each. Not necessary to even look in Web of Science for this one. Citations by 690 artoc;es fpr an article, with many others of over 200, is quite sufficient. Some of the notable papers should be added to the article. This could have been easily checked before the nom. --I suggest a Snow keep on this one. DGG (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While, I believe this is a no brainer, not quite ready to close it yet.Balloonman (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dhartung. Hammer1980·^talk 11:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article. --Dhartung | Talk 12:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep as per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Dhartung's expansion, notability clearly asserted. I'll let someone else close this one. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:14, 25 November 2007 (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.