Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel DiLorenzo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Keep by means of consensus and withdrawn nominaton. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel DiLorenzo

Daniel DiLorenzo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article reads like a self-serving promotion for his practice and company. Notability must be established in other areas than the author’s own mind. ShoesssS Talk 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment It must be noted that the article has changed its tone and style drastically from when I first nominated this piece for deletion. In this light, I bow my head and say Keep and a job well done toDGG (talk) who orchestrated & facilitated the changes. ShoesssS Talk
  • Delete 198 hits on Yahoo ... doesn't match up with the peacock language. Blueboy96 00:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. User:Benny Phillips replaced the entire AfD page with the following:
"Keep! If America is truly the land of the free (ha ha), it is imperative that such material is not censored. People in the world today are smart enough to decide for themselves what rings true and what doesn't. Censorship is only for those who have something to hide, ala, nazi regimes."

Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, just not notable, possible vanispangle-cruft-whatever. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. May be marginally notable according to this Google News Archive see [1]The article will need to be reworded. The behaviour of the user above doesn't help things. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Oysterguitarist 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep An inventor of of several innovative technologies for the treatment of neurological disease should be notable in his own right. Moreover, this article should be re-worded as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: For the reasons listed above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuxtron (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - prize winner, Google test reveals many hits. -- Fuzheado | Talk 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Since when does 198 Ghits mean not-notable? If just one of them is an interview in a national magazine that's enough to be notable. All Lemelson-MIT Prize winners are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep He's a prize-winning inventor; definitely notable. The article needs improvement, but that's an argument against deletion, not for it - if we delete it, how will it be improved? Maltrich 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - looks like he's borderline notable, but more reliable sources need to be added, and the article re-written. Haemo 02:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and de-spammify. Montco 03:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and Cleanup The article could use a lot of work (NPOV and so forth), but notability is not an issue. He obviously meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). He has been the subject of numerous significant published secondary sources, and has recieved multiple significant recognized awards or honors. As a scientist he meets the criteria, as he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, and has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Calgary 03:17, 15 July 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.