Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew long


 * 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 - the article meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Andrew long

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Australian geophysicist; I don't see any assertion of notability per WP:BIO in the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO. The Weak Willed 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think the indications of notability are pretty strong. Is the award insignificant? Is the article hyping things that aren't accurate? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, asserts notability credibly, SEG honorary lectureship is not to be sneezed at. DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to have made significant contributions to his field, though the refs in the article are not that helpful. Awickert (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Week keep I think notability is there, but needs to be pared down from the resume-style writing that it is now. --kelapstick (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. GS cites of 7, 4, 3, 2, but GS may not be relevant here. If article is accurate then probably passes notability. Needs assessment by a geophysicist. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:43, 12 August 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.