Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Schlissel


 * 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   speedy keep. (non-admin closure) - NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

David A. Schlissel

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

Fails WP:BIO ScienceApologist (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and develop. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep A paltry 35 Gnews hits suggests that despite a very long career in advocacy, he hasn't managed much attention. He gets quoted as an "expert" with some frequency, but apparently that's rather his job description. This one is truly borderline -- his mentions in secondary sources are almost all incidental, and his technical work comes nowhere near the other standard, which is WP:PROF. I !vote a weak keep simply because readers may wonder who he is. RayAYang (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep GNews hits aren't like plain ghits--they're screened, and if one cant make negative judgements by counting them, since two are enough for the GNG. Anyway, the NYT describes him as a "nuclear expert" and that's sufficient. DGG (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with DGG. Johnfos (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG. Ecoleetage (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2008 (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.