Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Duckworth

:{{la|Frank Duckworth}} ([{{fullurl:Frank Duckworth|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Duckworth}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

One of the two mathematicians/statisticians who developed the Duckworth-Lewis method for for recalculating runs targets in one-day cricket or Twenty20 cricket matches interrupted by weather or other circumstances. With greatest respect to Mr Duckworth, I would argue that article would appear to fail WP:NNC, WP:PEOPLE, and if despite these, still WP:GNG
Shirt58 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Delete: Tony_Lewis_(mathematician), for substantially the same reasons as above.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:*Merge both to Duckworth-Lewis method. Aditya ^α _ß 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

:*I've withdrawn my !vote. I'm now neutral on this issue. Aditya ^α _ß 14:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as above - Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. I think they pass WP:PROF #7 (significant non-academic impact of an academic work). Note that, although Duckworth's a fellow of the RSS, that only means that he pays an annual membership fee (it's not an elected honor) so he doesn't also pass #3, and I don't think RSS News is enough for #8. But there is also enough press that's specifically about Duckworth (and not just about his cricket scoring system), as I've added to the article, that I think he passes WP:BIO in his own right and should also be kept for that reason: if a New York Times headline calls someone a star, I think it's safe to conclude that they're notable. I haven't put as much effort into Lewis' article but I'm pretty sure it should be kept for all the same reasons. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. Signifcant impact on the game of cricket. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC).
• Keep Duckworth per David Eppstein and both based on the extensive coverage of their contribution to cricket (NYTimes, Cricinfo etc), although that contribution also has its own article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Question. I clumsily appended Tony Lewis to this discussion. It would seem that Duckworth's article has much stronger claim to notability than Lewis's. Nevertheless, it would appear that there are good reasons why both articles should be merged into Duckworth-Lewis method. Should Tony Lewis be AfD'd separately? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC) (nb: I started both articles, and would initially argue for deletion of both. It would seem that I was wrong to admit that I was wrong, and possibly that I was wrong to admit that I was wrong to admit that I was wrong. O tempora o mores!
• You could withdraw your nomination for Tony Lewis from this AfD and start a new one. Give a prominent link from here and optionally leave a note on the talk pages of everyone who has contributed so far. Nobody above has expressed an opinion only about Tony Lewis so I don't see that as an issue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article says "He is also known for a system of quantifying risk perception." That notability even if he'd never heard of cricket. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Duckworth as the Duckworth (INES) scale of risk has generated coverage outside academia and could also be worthy of coverage in Wikipedia (perhaps not a separate article but as a section of e.g. risk perception). It therefore avoids possible duplication to have brief biographical info on him at one place rather than merging.
  I'm not so sure about Lewis though: Extending the spirit of WP:BIO1E to "one thing" rather than "one event" suggests there's no need for a separate article on Lewis. An [http://web.archive.org/web/20080115192812/http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/bs/profile.asp?id=p0072504 archived copy of his page at Oxford Brookes University] gives no indication that he's worked on anything else of encyclopedic interest apart from Duckworth-Lewis or that he would pass WP:PROF on other grounds, so I think one or two sentences on him in the Duckworth-Lewis article would suffice. Qwfp (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep both. Both are significant individuals in their own right. Content is verifiable, so I see no harm. –Moondyne 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I've removed Tony Lewis (mathematician) from this discussion and nominated the article separately: that article may not meet notability criteria as Frank Duckworth apparently does - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_1#Tony_Lewis_.28mathematician.29
  --Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Lewis (mathematician) is the direct link to the debate. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keeep appears to meet notability. Artw (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (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.