Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Servos


 * 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The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator). Topic is a Fellow of the AAAS, thus passes WP:PROF (non-admin closure). -- Amalthea Talk 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

John Servos

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

I believe he fails WP:BIO. He is an active professor with decent contributions per google books and google scholar, however I found no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about him, as indicated by a low number of gnews hits. Notability in question since June 2007, and the only significant contribution to the article is its creation, all others are tags and cats, so interest in this biography is apparently also very low. His college bio reveals that one of his book won the "History of Science Society's Pfizer Prize for best book in the history of science in 1991", which is not enough to make him notable. Amalthea Talk 12:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Passes WP:PROF #3 (Fellow AAAS) and #5 (named chair at a small but good college). Only a weak keep for now because the article is so stubby that it's hard to discern the reasons he might have received those honors, but those reasons surely exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (weak or otherwise) per David Eppstein: article merits improvement, not deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per David Eppstein, weak article, searches makes clear his book and his Isis paper in particular well regarded.John Z (talk) 21:58, 19 October 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.