Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Roux

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Roux

Kenneth Roux (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - satisfies criteria 1 of WP:PROF with room to spare; this is the man who first described the surface of the HIV virus, which is the most likely route to the AIDS vaccine — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as another FSU holder of a distinguished chair in what by now is obviously a string of bad faith noms. DGG 03:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

considering the string of carelessly prepared FSU articles recently written, I can understand a feeling of impatience on the noms. part. They're still clearly N, but it can't be called bad faith. DGG 05:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. I don't see how being holder of a chair satisfies WP:PROF. Some chairs are more prestigious than others, and would certainly qualify, but I don't see this as an automatic claim to notability. fbb_fan 16:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. His research is not only notable within the academic world, but has received significant popular press coverage. Nominator has not done his homework. —David Eppstein 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The writer of the article didn't do his homework either. The research does appear to be notable, but the article really needs to assert this notability. It shouldn't be left for the reader (or AfD nominators) to go digging for more info. fbb_fan 16:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. There's a short paragraph on his research results. If someone doesn't understand if that's significant or not, they shouldn't be nominating for deletion. --C S (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Part of a series of badly-thought-out AFD nominations on FSU reseearchers by Dsreyn. --C S (Talk) 05:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is an easy case. It is factually accurate and clearly meets at least two of the PROF criteria for noteworthiness, as a) his research is significant, in terms of its high profiole publication in peer edited journals, and b) it has received tons of coverage in international media. Someone has it out for FSU professors, as about 75% of the professors on Wikipedia have weaker prolfiles than those that have been flagged for deletion (with the exception of Leo Sandon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (talk • contribs)

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.