Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Michael Frogley

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 per WP:HEY, but move and clean up. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dr Michael Frogley

Dr Michael Frogley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Has done nothing notable. Per WP:BIO. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Pburka (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Come back when you win an award. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. His research was deemed newsworthy by The Telegraph: [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable so far. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Weak keep 20 major papers in his subject, most in in the best journals. Mostc ited one , "Buffered tree population changes in a quaternary refugium: Evolutionary implications" in Science (magazine) v: 297 (5589) 2044-2047 (2002), cited 69 times, which is very good for this very narrow specialty. I think it qualifies as a leader in his field. DGG (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Times Cited: 69

  • Keep per David Eppstein and DGG, though this evidence of notability should be incorporated into article. Seems to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I particularly note the suggestion of innovation in the Telegraph article, where it is indicated that he and his colleagues have unveiled "a new approach". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (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.