Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore H. Rowell

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 keep. Punkmorten 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodore H. Rowell

At first it looked OK. On second glance nothing of particular note or importance, likely just a puff piece. Akihabara 07:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, was ready to give it a second chance as he's from around me, but he was just a local businessman/politician. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep on reconsideration. Some poking around indicates he may be notable as the "discoverer" (although the science was done by somebody else) of burbot liver oil's vitamin content, making the "trash" fish an economic resource. There are very few sources, though. --Dhartung | Talk 23:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Seems to be notable, if barely. I added an award reference to the article but unless someone is willing to do some more digging and clean up this article I'm not really ready to argue all that hard for its inclusion. NeoFreak 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Overall I found it to be good article, thank you for your time. Rcehoppe 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 04:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I think this squeaks in as just notable enough to keep, but it really does need better sources. Perel 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The multiple references indicate he meets WP:N and therefore should stay. Ccscott 11:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable "enough". --Alvestrand 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notability is not subjective... in other words, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck (you know the rest) Alf photoman 15:17, 14 December 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.