This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
While I am not a deletionist, this article probably serves as an excellent reminder of people that are completely obscure and minimal in human impact that have been included in this encyclopaedia. The subject of the article is a professor that people may have had as a student, but is that a justification for inclusion in an encyclopaedia? On the one hand, Wikipedia is meant to be a repository of all information of worth known to humankind, and on the other hand this person and his contributions (at least as attested here) are entirely minimal and seemingly obscure. Because this article which, if unimportant, is still well-written, is that a criteria for its preservation? Unless, Wikipedia can figure out some methodology other than adhoc to maintain balance for what it keeps and what it destroys - which it very clearly does not have now (it has process but no method)- it will continue to remain entirely unbalanced by retaining the insignificant and superficial, and eradicating the important and necessary. This may also reflect Wikipedia's preponderance of contributions from computer scientists who as technicians are notoriously unbalanced in their education and knowledge and consequently spread those seeds of imbalance throughout Wikipedia. Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
