Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Penrose

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Penrose[edit]

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

This article lacks notability~~—and references~~. Supertouch (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather obvious that I was mistaken in listing this article for AFD now that the page has references. I will leave it here though for a short while. Supertouch (talk)

Keep. Meets WP:PROF #1 due to his "pioneering work on Maxwell's demon".[1] Searching various combinations of his name, "Landauer-Penrose-Bennett", and "Maxwell's demon" turns up enough sources to support notability. Being a member of a family with other well-known family members is icing on the cake. I agree with the nom that the article needs sourcing and expansion to better demonstrate the notability of this subject. Location (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, being related to notable people is depreciated as a source of notability. And the link you provide doesn't lead to anything about Maxwell's Demon. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing that we're not actually relying on his family to define his notability. And the link points to a source that explicitly describes the subject's work on Maxwell's demon as "pioneering" (click "Page xii >>" in the above link). Location (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was the one who added the references. It only took a little searching to find that, in his fields of study and especially in terms of Maxwell's Demon, he is a big figure and fairly important, having come up with various theories that have had an impact on multiple fields. Silver seren^C 16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record gives him a pass of WP:PROF #1, and the FRS gives him a pass of #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Absurd and time wasting nomination; look at the GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - clearly notable now that refs have been added. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The links don't lead to what people seem to be saying they lead to. Abductive (reasoning) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (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.