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. John254 04:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This particular scientist is not notable and fails the WP:PROF test as well as considerations at WP:BIO and WP:SCI. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like an adequate stub to me. WP:PROF is only a proposal. Carlqvist seems to have been well-published, and lends his name to the Carlqvist relation.[1] --Iantresman 17:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand to avoid second nomination Alf photoman 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is a little different from the usual Proftest situation, because he does not yet have a high academic position, but he has done significant work. This is why there are multiple criteria, any one of which is sufficient. DGG 01:30, 19 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.