Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard H. Holm

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 Speedy keep Acalamari 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard H. Holm

Richard H. Holm (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article does not assert notability and has no cited references. Illinois2011 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep — subject won award. Meets WP:PROF, specifically criterion 6.--Agüeybaná 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Named chair at Harvard. Member of and award from the National Academy of Sciences. Highly cited papers. Honorary degree from U. Chicago. Very clear pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per David Eppstein. Why has this even been nominated? --Crusio 07:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep He is a notable scientist. We can find references. He is a notable chemist[1]. Masterpiece2000 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:PROF. Articles are not deleted just because they are not complete. Wstaffor_talk 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per all of the above. What is the rush to delete a two-day old article on a notable topic before giving time for people to add sources? --Itub 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly notable per WP:PROF. While it would be nice if new articles had their notability claims verifiable via reliable sources when the article is first created, I think we all realize that a good number of articles are simply not finished, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are not notable. The article could use some work, yes, but the claims are verifiable. Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 19 October 2007 (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.