Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. A. L. Fell

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. John254 02:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. A. L. Fell[edit]

Per WP:BIO. The award that this person apparently won does not seem to exist, or is not very notable. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - It's a Cantabrigian thing. I believe nowadays it's called the Prince Consort and Thirlwall Prize for Historical Research: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/reporter/2007-08/special/06/86.html etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gotcha. Is that enough to assert notability...? Gary King (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - I dunno: it's an annual prize, apparently. A Cantabrigian and/or a British historian (I'm neither, being U.S. at a public university) would know better than I what the prestige is, if any. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The award is immaterial; if Wikipedians don't like the information, it can be removed. The important thing is the paper, which to date is the most important item written on the Flaminia (in English, at any rate); the eminent co-author tips you off to it. His book is still considered of value as well. Certainly more noteworthy than all those Pokemon cards. Bill (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't quite realize this is a vote. Keep, of course. The Thirlwall Prize — ample information available via Google — is an annual prize awarded to a recent Cambridge grad for original research. The winners of the Thirlwall have occasionally gone on to significant success in their field. It's still being awarded. Bill (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the award and Bill's info on the Flamina paper. Edward321 (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with some cleaning up, but otherwise seems OK. Johnfos (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this odd article. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Regardless of the award, appears to qualify as notable by at least one of the academic notability criteria ("has published a significant and well-known academic work"). EALacey (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (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.