Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Eekelaar

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 20:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Eekelaar

Tagged for speedy as vanity, but I see a real assertion of notability in the list of honors and publications. No vote. --Dmcdevit·t 06:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep Real prominence in specific field (Family Law) unlikely to be vanity per se (individual known to be not a web person!) and significant in academic circles stated. Honours and publications are notable.--Silver149 07:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment John Eekelaar deserves an article. This information is factual. And I verified it easily - because it's close enough to a copy of his bio at Oxford University's law school that I wish I knew the copyvio policy better. The Literate Engineer 07:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability asserted, per The Literate Engineer. Re: Copyvio: If there is a decent changing of the wording, I would say it's ok, but if it is an extremely close match, it is a copyvio. EvilPhoenix talk 07:38, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable legal academic. Capitalistroadster 11:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've cleaned up a bit, may still need some work. Keep. Proto t c 11:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be notable within his field. Hall Monitor 21:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, his bio says he's a Fellow of the British Academy which is good enough for me. -Splash 23:32, 5 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.