Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timo Hannay

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timo Hannay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable science writer/publisher. Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal, not a vote. This person is documented in multiple, independent, reliable sources - as evidenced by a few interviews that are not his own publications. That does not mean a reader is interested in them. I could go either way. Are there any information showing interest in the subject? Miami33139 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep under
WP:BIO. Gnews turns up a good number of news items (about 40), many related to his web publication work with Nature. Most of the traction seems to stem from the prestige of the magazine. One recent news article states that: “Nature's head of web publishing Timo Hannay confessed that of the firm's myriad Web 2.0 projects, only a couple bring in any revenue.”--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Although he rates a weak keep on
WP:Prof he is clearly not concentrating an academic research now. His science communication and web publishing activities appear to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC).[reply
]

Keep satisfies general notability clearly to me. is it verifiable? clearly. he is the level of a superstar... no, but notable yes. --Buridan (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timo Hannay is well known in the domain of Science publishing/communication.--Plindenbaum (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hannay is a key person in science publishing. He runs nature.com, the online arm of the Nature publishing group. Michael Nielsen (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors."
Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals - numerous interviews and presentations at various conferences and events testify to the fact that he is an important figure in the field of innovation in online academic publishing. Rakerman (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Timo Hannay's work trying to pry open science (the web review experiment) makes him quite notable in the field, even if you would deny the notabilit of his work at Nature, helping Run the sci-foo camp unconference and in general helping advance scienctific journals off their moribund paper based roots. Cdibona (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Timo's work as publisher at Nature.com is not strictly academic so the guidelines at
Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals is more appropriate. His stature and influence in the science publishing community is probably best demonstrated by the fact that he is an invited speaker at virtually every conference or workshop on the future of science and science publishing. His work at Nature.com in particular has transformed the online offering of what remains the world premiere venue for science communication. While Nature clearly gives him a platform there is an additional argument that holding such a position at Nature is notable in its own right. In addition he is a co-founder of SciFoo camp. Cameron Neylon (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - No question about that. Notable person, head of Nature.com. Co-organizer of the Science Foo Camp taking place in Googleplex every year. Berci Mesko (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment looks like a snowball to me....---Buridan (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes time to close. Jim Carmel (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.