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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Goertzel[edit]

Ben Goertzel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

According to the deletion log, this article was deleted at VfD, later re-created and speedied, then protected from re-creation, then a Deletion Review endorsed the second deletion but removed the protection. It has now been re-created again; it reads somewhat like autobiographical material and appears to have been copy-pasted from one of the previous versions – Gurch 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It doesn't help to notice that the image was uploaded without copyright status. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom ThrustVectoring 08:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alf photoman 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as re-creation of previously deleted article. Well-published, but none of his works seem to be widely recognized. --N Shar 19:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is notable because of research, has been published, etc. but article is terrible. Needs to be cleaned up a lot. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep, has been profiled in WSJ[1], ~100 Google Books results (only a few his own works). Tag for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 15 January 2007 (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.