Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto J. M. Smith

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. — CharlotteWebb 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Otto J. M. Smith

Tagged for speedy deletion, however there are a few assertions of (vague) notability in this article. Definitely needs to be wikified, but I'm undecided as to whether the guy's notable enough. Abstain yandman 10:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Satisfies WP:PROF with over 40 years as tenured professor at major university, numerous publications, research awards, patents, textbook. Inkpaduta 15:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, no problem with WP:PROF nor with WP:BIO, written so it conforms WP:V why was it nominated as speedy? Alf photoman 19:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• It was speedy nominated by a first day user, whose other contributions were uploading about 10 questionable graphics many to do with K-12 schools. Pranks? --Kevin Murray 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, although as the page creator I may be biased, see disclaimer on page discussion, I believe it meets all the criteria for a wikipedia article. If not please let me know where and if my interpretation is wrong --Ottojas 20:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to prank speedy nomination of a reasonable article, but could use referencing though --Kevin Murray 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - definitely passess WP:BIO with so many publications, recognitions (Senior Research Fellow, Guggenheim Fellow, Leaders of the Pack, and ... 4 patents?!? As for the "speedy" part, I believe the following quote from WP:SK is applicable: "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody else recommends deleting it". -- Black Falcon 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• speedy keep I am quite relieved to know that it wasn't a regular user who did the speedy. I would just have removed the tag, but there's nothing wrong sending it here if it doubt. DGG 02:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly should not have been marked for "speedy deletion" and thankfully no administrator acted on that. (jarbarf) 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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.