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, but what a mess. Obviously, we cannot have one article about two individuals that are completely unrelated outside of sharing a similar name. Needs to be split. As for notability, it seems from this discussion that the doctor is notable and the engineer is marginal at best. Strongly recommend an Afd or prod for the engineer article once split. If both end up kept, recommend either a dab page, or at the very least hatnotes. Nothing getting deleted ATM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Denny-Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable — Wackymacs (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverted - I've reverted back to the article about the software engineer. I think that if the doctor has a separate article, it shouldn't be piggybacked onto another person. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still stands, however. Both people are non-notable, regardless. (Especially that engineer...what makes him so notable?) — Wackymacs (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I do have my doubts about their notability as well. I think the engineer's claim rests on his development of XML (although surely he wasn't the only person the development team?). I was trying to be bold with my editing, however, I completely understand your revert. As the article stands, though, I say Delete. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't say he developed XML. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake. More specifically "is credited with the development of both the MSXML XML processing engine, as well as the XMLHTTP ActiveX Control."Tnxman307 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see strong case for notability of the software engineer. Although he may have been the first to code a certain XML engine and a certain XML browser control, just that this has later become standard doesn't make him notable unless we have secondary sources showing that his contribution was essential. I only found a couple of minor non-blog references to him, unfortunately. The neurologist, however, seems a clear keep based on paper citations and commemorations of him by his peers. His official bio show numerous routes to notability including major awards. This needs cleanup, not deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the neurologist beyond any doubt--the ref in the article explains the notability. As for the engineering, if he is "is dev lead for both MSXML & System.Xml." then he probably is notable, bnut I defer to the experts in that field. DGG (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. There is no way that we can sensibly discuss this when the article is currently about two different subjects whose only link is that they share a name. I would suggest that this AfD should be closed and the article should be split into two. Then if anyone wants to renominate one or both of the articles for deletion we can discuss things properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and start anew for the neurologist. The first part is not an article but a list of links (one might even call it linkspam); the second, unrelated "article" on the page doesn't demonstrate sufficient notability as it's presented. An article for the neurologist seems to be in order, but not this one. B.Wind (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the neurologist, verifiable. Weak keep computer engineer if claims are true. Separate articles, clean up and source. --Oldak Quill 12:35, 9 May 2008 (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.