Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pascal Constanza

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 No consensus. Moved page to Pascal Costanza. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pascal_Constanza

Looks like a vanity article about a person who does not fulfill the notability criteria 128.119.232.69 19:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm a lisper. This guy is notable in his field. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I am relisting this article. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I've asked Tony for additional information on Pascal. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • I know him mainly through a very influential introduction to Lisp. He's a researcher with a number of interesting projects, and I think we might put him relatively high on the scale of notability mainly because he has co-organized international workshops and conferences; for instance he was one of the organizers of ECOOP 2005 (European Conference on Object Oriented Programming) at Glasgow as well as delivering workshops and papers at that event. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major figures in the field of a certain programming language are encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The article title is wrong, as it should be Pascal Costanza. I'm somewhat familiar with Costanza from reading his postings in c.l.l. and c.l.s., but I'm not convinced that it's accurate to characterize him as a major figure in the field of a certain programming language. Right off the top of my head I can think of two dozen or more lispers who are more much more notable. Although I love lisp and this is certainly not an attack on Costanza, I'm not sure that lispers that far down the totem pole are encyclopedically notable. Lisp is over 45 years old so it's harder to become notable for it now than it was for work in the 1960s through 1980s. Quale 09:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A review and a presentation do not establish notability. Pilatus 15:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we treated this analogously to WP:PROF, I think he fails the sniff test. I'd say delete without prejudice for resubmission at some later date when he is well-known beyond the Usenet pond. His CV indicates some good research, but nothing that rises beyond the level of thousands of other CS PhD's. His research may yet yield fruit that is truly notable, and we should welcome him with open arms when he publishes it and is recognized for it. Not yet. Nandesuka 16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Nandesuka. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nandesuka. Does not meet the "professor test". MCB 19:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tony, but the article needs to be improved and expanded. I confess to being a LISP fanatic myself. Sdedeo 19:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep title is wrong, yet, you might be able to expand on this a lot. WB 21:34, 5 September 2005
• Keep and move - to Pascal Constanza. Notable in his field. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 23:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this were a humanities prof with a similar level of exposure people would be deleting. Maybe that shouldn't be the case but we need at least to be consistent. Marskell 08:28, 8 September 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.