Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 05:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Cohen

Vanity Page - nothing to see here. Benjamin Gatti 14:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Emeritus professor, but does need a lot more to make it a good article. Alf 17:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be expanded into an encyclopedia article Dlyons493 17:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess I go with Redirect to Bernard Cohen (disambiguation). Really nothing more on this page than on that one. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 17:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the chap who in a televised debate offered to eat on-camera as much plutonium oxide as Ralph Nader could eat of caffeine. He compared the risks of such exposure to the risks associated with a six month vacation in Denver and to the risks of the average WWI draftee. A bit of a self-publicist, but at the time a self-publicising tenured professor at the University of Pittsburgh. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems notable enough. Keep as per Tony Sidaway, if the article has been expanded by the time the VfD is closed. Uppland 21:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete -- completely non-notable one-time attention-getter. This is a fifteen-minutes-of-famer whose fifteen weren't that important. Do you know how many tenured professors there are in the United States? Sheesh. JDoorjam 23:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why isn't fifteen minutes of fame enough? He's notable enough that he might show up in a history book. We've got minor actors galor, why not a tenured professor that reached national notability, if only briefly?--Prosfilaes 04:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, had fifteen minutes of fame. Kappa 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This listing is partly my fault, and I apologise. I left it as a minimal stub, thinking wrongly that Professor Emeritus would be sufficient proof of notability, which in Australia it possibly is, but in the US people we would call Senior Lecturer or Associate Professor seem to be able to use this title automatically after retirement, so in hindsight what I left was a deletable sub-stub. I then got involved in NPOV discussions and didn't get back to expand it, but others now have (thank you). Cohen is very well known for his pro-nuclear activities, we've even heard of him in Australia. His 1990 book The Nuclear Energy Option doesn't sell very well largely because he has made the full text of it available online, but it does sell. Andrewa 06:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony Sidaway, above.--Nicodemus75 06:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article gives relevant info. Could be also used for the discussion in the nuclear power phase-out article. Ben T/C 07:39, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Passes the average college professor test. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep agree with Lord Voldemort on all points. Benjamin Gatti
    • Comment: This is of course a change of vote by the page's nominator, leaving only one delete vote currently outstanding although that one is an absolute delete, which I assume is even stronger than a strong delete. I think I should also point out that as I am not Professor Cohen, this wasn't ever a vanity page. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Or rather, a change in content of the article, good work, and yeah I agree, the page has been saved. Benjamin Gatti
        • Comment: There doesn't seem to have been much doubt that it would be kept. I'm a bit surprised at your mistaking this for a vanity page, as you seem to have an active interest in the particular debate in which Cohen is prominent. No change of vote. Andrewa 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment: I am interested, but without content, I found the page of no use. It needed to shape up or ship out. I learned something about him - no idea he offered to swallow plutonium. I wonder if he offered to live in Chernobyl? I wonder if he offered to adopt irradiated children orphaned by Chrnobyl? I wonder if his antics weren't merely sensational? As for Vanity, i think a page which serves no more purpose than a business card is a vanity page whether self-promoting or not - if i'm wrong about that - i'd be happy to use a different word. Benjamin Gatti 18:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Chernobyl has nothing to do with missions to Neptune that need plutonium-based power cores. Surely countering false claims about a material's danger is more than just sensational? --Prosfilaes 19:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Tony Sidaway. Hall Monitor 19:35, 23 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.