Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who have published in Public Library of Science journals


 * 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 delete. alpha Chimp (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

List of scientists who have published in Public Library of Science journals
This is an ever growing, unmaintanable, unencyclopedic list. WS 19:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Better handled by a category.  --Dennis The TIger 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per both nomination and Dennis - The large number of red-link entries brings into question the requirement for such a list.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 20:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as per WS. Nephron T|C 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dennis The TIger. Thryduulf 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do not categoryfy - a career scientist can publish in up to 50 journals. JFW | T@lk  21:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not even a useful list. Agree with the recommendation not to categorize. -AED 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't categorize per most comments above. Michael Kinyon 07:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and agree that categorization would serve no purpose -- Samir धर्म 23:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with above, and against categorization as well. Pete.Hurd 20:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete impossible to manage, and is too biased.


 * 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.