Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall D. Isaac


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Randall D. Isaac

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete (as nom) per failing WP:ACADEMIC. All the citations from independent/reliable are trivial and do not prove notability. BelloWello (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviously the author of the article tried really hard to find sources. As the other "voter" said they are not very substantial. In one he is just quoted as a spokesperson for his employer. On the other hand I am a little offended to learn that WP articles are being awarded to recognize successful professors. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: nothing really to indicate that he meets any of the criteria of WP:PROF and insufficient coverage to make it worth while to try to press the issue (or make a WP:GNG argument). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think being a VP and frequent spokesman for IBM is really enough — the articles I can find quote him on various IBM discoveries, but don't really go into any depth on his particular role in those discoveries, which I think we'd need to use them in WP:GNG. And as for his creationism, he's name-checked for it in USA Today, but again without any of the detail about his activities as a creationist that I think would be needed to support notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment and questions: As a result of some searching - Randall Isaac became the director of the ASA, (although I don't know when). He has been an ASA fellow since 1996 (same source). There is a Wikipedia article on the ASA here. If this is a notable organization, and since he is an ASA fellow, and current or former director this could indicate notability? For example, if he became president of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society, or president of the Optical Society of America this person would be considered notable. Does the ASA merit equal notability? Here is the web site . Does this organization try to maintain a balance between science and religion? I might have more later.  Steve Quinn (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is mention of some of his accomplishments during his career - the 64MB DRAM project, "first successful introduction of copper wiring to computer chips", "research vice president of systems, technology, and science", "world wide responsibility for the research division's strategy in the areas of physical sciences and technology", and "first experimental gigahertz CMOS microprocessor".
 * He is contributing author IEEE Solid State Society News; Winter 2008; Volume 13, Number 1; (page 45) for the overall story of the DRAM industry since its beginnings in 1970, and the reasons for its success . This also has some of his biography on page 49. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here he is listed on Google Scholar: as RD Isaac, and for Randall Isaac . (RD Isaac has a lot more hits). Apparently he authored another article here . It looks like he may have contributed to some books  Steve Quinn (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it appears the above information provides evidence of notability, and that this person merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in view of evidence of technological achievements revealed above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2011 (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.