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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McMillan[edit]

Paul McMillan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability tagged since last December. Young physicist with a recent doctorate and a temporary research position; can hardly be said to pass the Professor Test for notability. Looks cool in those sunglasses, though. P L E A T H E R _talk 07:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable, no independent sources except a preprint server. Huon (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:V and is therefore non-notable. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 11:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a notable scientist. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Four papers, not yet actually published -- and, not surprisingly, uncited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
• Delete Postdoc with four papers... Let him come back in 15 years. BTW article was created by an User:Teraspawn, according to the user page this is Beth McMillan, so perhaps she's his sister. This has been her major contribution and she hasn't edited since last year December. --Crusio (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG and Crusio. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep If the article is rewritten, it would be keep worthy, however in it's current state it is not keep worthy.Remilo (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The state of an article's writing is not a reason to argue either for or against deletion. Please base your arguments on the WP deletion policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:19, 17 June 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.