Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Opdyke

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 kept. Non admin closure. Redirecting should be discussed on the talk page if necessary, as some have opposed that suggestion here. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Opdyke[edit]

College professor, with one published book as co-author. Does not appear to meet notability standards at this time. Lawrence Cohen 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or merge with Refactoring, per Uncle Ed. Epbr123 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22WF+Opdyke%22 for journal articles by this academic. --Eastmain (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind detailing out the article a bit? Good catch, though. Lawrence Cohen 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that he has also published under "Bill Opdyke", so the other search doesn't find all his papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I plan to merge it with Refactoring. Then I will leave REDIRECT behind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes professor test. Tparameter (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar link provided by Eastmain shows a very high level of citation for several books/papers by this author, and his work appears to have been key to the development of the subject of code refactoring, per our article. Passes my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge with the subject he studies; he is notable individually. Many articles on academics are written carelessly, and they should be checked before nominating for deletion. (I will admit though, that this is about as careless as i have ever seen it. ) DGG (talk) 03:44, 25 January 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.