Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Golomb

{{ns:0|B}}

:{{la|Jacob Golomb}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Seems to be a non-notable academic (or at least, the page doesn't show any evidence of notability). Geoffrey.landis (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Please see the Google Scholar results at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=Jacob+Golomb&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=soc&hl=en&lr=&safe=off

--Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously notable scholar, as Google Books comes up with 240 hits. See [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jacob+Golomb%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Jacob+Golomb%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np] (Mind meal (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
• Keep - This is a stub, not a full article, therefore not subject to the same requirements as an article. It doesn’t need deletion, it needs expansion. —Travis^talk 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - but the stub requires a great deal of work (so good faith of nominator not in doubt). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

::good faith, sure, but it is not helpful to omit to check even Google Scholar. DGG (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Actually, I'd considered tagging it for speedy delete, since it seems to meet the explicit criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, A7: "article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."), but speedy delete is too often abused, so I stuck it in for AfD instead. Obviously that was a good choice, but when the article's claim to the guy's notability gets down to listing what languages he speaks, I'd say it's an article with little evidence of notability. As for the fact that it's "only a stub"... the stub hasn't been edited in about 18 months, so as far as I could tell, it sure looked like what was there was likely to be all that was gonna be there. And, in fact, despite the discussion here, it is still an article that fails to make any real case for notability. Was anybody thinking of adding some text to it? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

keep and improve too short, references needed Logastellus (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep- Proven notable scholar. Needs expansion and sources though.Taxman214 02:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxman214 (talk • contribs)

: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.