Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Federer


 * 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 of the debate was delete the current version (a copy is currently at User:Stanley011/Robert Federer) - Liberatore(T) 12:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Federer
seeming nn, but he did invent some paper-whitening thing and he is Roger's dad M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted--expanded upon and cleaned up, clearly, but not deleted--the study was published in a notable publication and seemed to have a significant impact upon the field Stanley011 05:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC).
 * Weak keep per Stanley. The El Reyko 05:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article needs to show what kind of impact Robert Federer's study had on the field, and it should show the sources. But are we sure this guy warrants his own article? If there isn't enough material on Robert Federer, the info in this article can possibly just be included in the Roger Federer article. --Noelle De Guzman (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I would be willing to compromise on a redirect to Roger Federer but at this point I'm leaning towards delete. Only 537 results on google which leads me to believe it lacks notability.--Cini 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. References to notability isnt provided. The article contends his study was "revolutionary", but only links to the research itself. Without specific proof that the study was indeed revolutionary, we should assume it probably wasnt. Many people publish stuff every day, and not all of it should be in an encyclopedia. The Minist   e   r of War   (Peace) 10:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with all of the above. Eusebeus 10:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't seem notable except for his offspring, and it's unsourced. -- E ivindt@c 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article IS sourced--it provides a link to his study, which was published in a peer review publication; it is clearly not "original research" because it was actually published in a respectable source and is therefore verifiable. The study would not have been published in a peer-reviewed chemistry journal if it did not have a significant impact on the field. Stanley011 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Comment: The article, as it now is, is rather incomplete; I do plan on adding much more to it in the coming weeksStanley011 19:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Due to the haste with which some editors believe incomplete articles should be dealt with, I recommend you copy the article to your user space, work on it there, and bring it back to the main space when it is finished. Instructions can be found at WP:USER.   When expanding the article pay attention to the notability guideline.  There is no question that he co-wrote an article on paper-making technology, the question is whether it is "revolutionary." There are thousands of scientific papers published every month and only a very few are revolutionary. Thatcher131 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thatcher, I think that is a reasonable suggestion. I will do that. Stanley011 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC). P.S. How do I copy the article to my user space? Stanley011 21:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Stanley: Go to the Robert Federer page and go to edit. Copy the code there. Then, go to User:Stanley011 and click edit. Then paste the code. Yay! M1ss1ontomars2k4 22:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Miss1on: When you write "copy the code there" what code are you refering to? Where do I find this code? Stanley011 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The complete text in the edit window -- Hirudo 02:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete--nixie 02:25, 2 May 2006 (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.