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. Clear enough DGG (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Additionally page needed to be wikified, and no additional edits were made to reference the topic in over one month. Rmosler |● 22:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing here that would pass WP:PROF or otherwise convince me of his notability. Too much of this is the sort of thing one would put on a resume to impress a potential employer but that is unlikely to interest a Wikipedia reader. And far too little of this can be supported by the listed sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any GS cites. Appears to have made litle impact on the world of formal scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 11 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.