Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perley G. Nutting


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. § FreeRangeFrog 00:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perley G. Nutting

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Can't find anything significant about him except his presidency at the OSA, and the society has had dozens of presidents since its founding. FingersOn  Roids  00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep As president of the Optical Society of America he passes Notability (academics) criteria #6 "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society".--kelapstick (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google News search clearly shows notability, including obituary coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post that details his contributions to science: . Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious notability as founder of a scientific society that is still around and as one of its presidents. The fact that online sources can be found for someone who passed away in 1949 is very telling, too. Perhaps someone can add the info from the obit that Pastor Theo located to the article. --Crusio (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the information from the New York Times plus additional information. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Like kelapstick and Crusio, I also think he meets WP:PROF criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society). Probably meets other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. If founding OSA and the major newspaper obits weren't enough (and I think they are) there's also the (disputed) claim of priority for neon signage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep as per above. There should be a rule that a nominator can't nominate an article for deletion after x number of snowball keeps. Ikip (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Are you saying that I should have withdrawn my nomination sooner? I'm sorry, but somehow I forgot to add this to my watchlist. FingersOn  Roids  21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per above. EagleFan (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nomination Withdrawn I withdraw this nomination in good faith and with my apologies. I can't believe that I missed #6 on WP:PROF. Sorry, FingersOn  Roids  21:44, 23 February 2009 (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.