Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian shoemaker

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian shoemaker

Delete: Vanity. --Durin 00:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete goonn, vanity -Harmil 01:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, vanity. Jaxl 01:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The usual. -Splash 01:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable, vanity, and the last name isn't even capitalized! Redwolf24 02:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • See Geogre's Law. Uncle G 11:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, I'm in the Wikipedia. :-) (I actually invented it as a parody of the "X-law" that states something obvious, and, of course, to provide a shorthand for the commonplace observation that anyone not deserving of a majiscule name is almost certainly undeserving of a biography.)Geogre 13:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not written in sentences, very short. DarthVader 03:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn and vanity, agreed with DarthVader. The mere fact that the last name was not capitalized might prove to me that the author really did not care at all about this subject... -mysekurity 04:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Terribly predictable non-article about some dude. Geogre 13:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable in both plasma physics and the study of the quantum to classical transition in inflation. Sandlarino 11:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)NOTE: Possible sock puppet. This user's vote was their only contribution to Wikipedia at the time they made their vote.
• Delete nn vanity. Even if this stuff is notable it belongs in an article of its own, not one under this guy's name. --Etacar11 22:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC) (belated signature, sorry)
• Delete: Appears to fail WP:BIO, and the technical content would have to be nearly completely rewritten if this is to be useful to more people than himself and his supervisor. --IByte 13:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is significant. See Cornwall and Bruinsma (Phys. Rev. D 38, 3146–3157 (1988)) for similar work. jacobmc 22:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC) NOTE: Possible sock puppet. This user's vote is their only contribution to Wikipedia so far.

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.