Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence M. Krauss

Lawrence M. Krauss was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep

Non-notable person, ludicrous article. RickK 22:12, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Comment. Well, he wrote 'The Physics of Star Trek', quite a popular and famous book. Not sure if he's done anything else notable, but perhaps with a major overhaul, this article could be acceptable. Darksun 22:19, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * He's written about a dozen books, he's the chair of a major physics department, he's been a science writer & commentator in the mass media for about ten years, and he's coauthored over 200 papers (checked his uni's webpage). The article needs a lot of work, but he's notable- Keep. -FZ 22:40, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, a poor stub but a notable person. - SimonP 00:47, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Clean up, clean up, clean up on aisle 5! Keep it only, and I mean only, if it's cleaned.  The guy is a major popularizer of science.  He has been a happy radio contributor and a spokesman, and it's better by far to have nothing at all that to have this.  If it's not expanded after clean up, I think we're better off deleting and waiting for a new article. Geogre 01:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd lay money on this article appearing due to Scientific American running a Q&A with him in the August 2004 issue. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Even more so now that I checked the page history where it's explicitly stated :) -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I did some work on it, it's (hopefully) looking a little better now. Could still do with cleaning up, and expanding if possible. But should be a keep now. Darksun 08:21, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --Palapala 09:24, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable based on books and the work as a popularizer of science (possibly notable on other aspects as well, but those are enough). Andris 09:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, a good clean-up job. - TB
 * Keep, I guess. But I wonder exactly what "several best-selling books" means?  More than 2?  More than 3?  Why not give the exact number?  Looking at the list of books he's written, I can't believe that any of them except the two Star Trek books could possibly have been bestsellers.  And in any case, who says even those two were bestsellers? Hayford Peirce 03:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Is the above discussion implying that an article about a person be kept or deleted on Wikipedia because a few people don't think that person to be notable? Whose definition of notable are we supposed to consider? What if that person is very well re-knowned in a part of the world that the active wikipedians are not connected with? If an article has enough depth in it and transfers information that is with a NPOV, then by all means it must be kept. I'd say Keep! - Vohiyaar 19:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and remove from the VFD page. Since the cleanup I think it is clear that the article is acceptable. Manning 22:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)