Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Lewis (mathematician)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Lewis (mathematician)
- Tony Lewis (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This discussion is a result of (what I fully admit was clumsy) addition, then withdrawal, in the
Duckworth-Lewis Method and to Keep both The specific notability of this article should have been tested - again, this was my fault - but it was not. Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The co-inventor of the widely used Duckworth-Lewis method in cricket. The coverage in the "The Independent" and "New York Times" provides the necessary RS. Salih (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep sources establish notability. A case could be made for merger, but that would be better handled outside of AFD. Artw (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While it can come across as talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Unlike Duckworth I can't find anything else of note that he's done. But I think he does have enough personal fame as a result of this one thing to merit a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 1 July 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.