- 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 Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsubstantiated, non-notable Accounting4Taste 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The guy appears notable in his field. See ([1], [2]).Stammer 05:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. ditto above. Article has been updated with a few more tidbits. Ohconfucius 05:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that this has been expanded with the good work of Ohconfucius and Stammer, I don't see any further reason to delete, so please consider my nomination withdrawn. (I'm new here, still learning my way around, and was practising nominations for deletions ... and besides the reasons cited, this person's unusual name made me suspect that it was vandalism.) If there's something more I should do, please let me know. Accounting4Taste 18:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close following withdrawl of nomination, in the absence of dissenting voices. Ohconfucius 01:15, 4 May 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.