Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Lunde


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken Lunde

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article does not assert notability or give reliable sources beyond the authoring of two books on computer processing. Supporting material on the topic Ken Lunde does not seem to exist in reliable sources. JoshuSasori (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see anything that would get this past WP:GNG and writing a few computer books does not merit inclusion under WP:AUTHOR. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Two books on a specialized topic by the major publisher in the field is enough for notability as an author. Reviews would be nice, but considering the reputation of the publisher, not essential. I'll accept the judgement of the publisher's reviewers.  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep: per DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with  DGG--two highly regarded, peer reviewed, books by a reputable publisher, one with two editions, is notable enough. He is also an editor of a code space in the Unicode consortium. Mark viking (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: per DGG. Most certainly meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. -- BenTels (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as per DGG. -—Kvng 04:18, 8 January 2013 (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.