Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurance Doyle

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 of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laurance Doyle

From speedy. Some Google and Google News hits. No vote. r3m0t talk 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Google scholar indicates a publications by him. I find some 29 papers on Web of Knowledge by an LR Doyle on astronomical topics, which I believe are by him. Also appears to have been editor of the proceedings of at least one conference. Work is of the sort likely to interest the public, as evidenced by at least one article in Scientific American. So a verifiable scientist with a track record and a position of reasonable authority. Keep. Average Earthman 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Plus his work on animal communications seems interesting. -- JJay 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I created it, but I'm not voting in this case. I was surprised when this was put on speedy as that seemed a bit extreme. That said I mentioned this guy when doing List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) and at the time things I said indicated I didn't think he was noteworthy enough to start an article on him. So that might explain some things. That said I did an article on him because I did find he was in Google News and also figured he might actually be important enough. Oddly I'm still not entirely certain of that, but he has a couple books at Amazon. I'm assuming that is the same guy as it's a Laurance R. Doyle book distributed by SETI, which indicates he probably is LR Doyle. "LR Doyle" gets a good deal more hits at Scholar Google. That said his books at Amazon have a sales rank that is lower than even that Kenneth Eng guy so I'm not sure. I don't know enough on notability for scientists and have said enough as is.--T. Anthony 03:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think everything gets tagged as a speedy now. There must be a competition going on. You were somewhat lucky since you had a full 11 minutes to edit before the tag. -- JJay 03:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but definitely needs to be expanded. TheRingess 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Average Earthman. Seems to have done some significant work on extrasolar planets and planet systems. (I wonder how many articles on scientists actually get speedied because some anonymous or just lazy and uninterested bypasser has tagged them as nn-bio.) u p p l a n d 08:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Not much. A few end up at Speedy, but those are usually moved to AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - He was chosen as editor for "Circumstellar habitable zones: proceedings of the first international conference" (intro written by Carl Sagan, mind you...). That honor alone makes him worth consideration, as he is obviously respected by his peers. His thesis, entitled "Voyager imaging photometry and radiative transfer modeling of the spoke-like features in Saturn's outer B-ring." was also quite good. I remember reading it two years after he finished it. He deserves a biog. article here.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't the qualifier in List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) redundant? - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
What qualifier? Do you mean the part that says "religious denomination"? Well no, that qualifier isn't redundant. If you forget capitalization and qualifier you get the List of Christian scientists, then see where that leads. I don't think I put any qualifier in adding him to Christian Science list except to say he works at SETI.--T. Anthony 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Give the editors a chance to fix it up a bit. Kmac1036 08:37, 2 January 2006 (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.