Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Wowk

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 of the debate was keep. Shanel 03:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wowk

Deleted as copyvio, Recreated/rewritten; relisted. mikka (t) 18:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable cryogenic biotechnologist. The article is a resume, slightly modified to avoid copyvio. mikka (t) 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CEO would be notable, chief scientist is not --Ruby 21:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a major person in cryonics. He has been a part of both the Cryonics and Molecular nanotechnology articles since 2004, so he is a well established person. It is not a copyvio either, all of the wording and sentences are different from the original source. (Cardsplayer4life 22:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I surfed onto this wikipedia page from another page about cryonics while doing research. I am not an "expert" user of wikipedia or anything, but it did help me out. Take that for what it is worth, but it was useful to me. (130.161.82.41 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep — No evidence of copyvio. Original author should be given a chance to pull in more research to flesh out the article and rely less on original source.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 21, 2006, 02:37 (UTC)

Thanks, I just added some more info, and will continue to research and add info. (Cardsplayer4life 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep revised - new edit looks a lot better. Tawker 22:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — as rewritten. I have discussed the article with Dr. Wowk and he was very displeased with the previous versions, and was not unhappy with having them deleted. I do believe, however, that Dr. Wowk is a very capable scientist whose work is noteworthy, and that he should be included in Wikipedia. I have discussed that matter with him and we have produced the text that has just replaced the version mostly written by Cardsplayer4life. I hope that the other editors find this version acceptable. I think Dr. Wowk is going to be even more recognized for his future work than for the work he has already done. --Ben Best 15:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very acceptable, since I do not know the man personally, I did not know he was unhappy with the previous versions. I just felt that he deserved a wiki entry, and am happy he is now pleased with the current version. (Cardsplayer4life 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Even in the rewritten version there is no evidence of his recognition. His own writings do no count. In what books other reputable people give credits to Wowk? mikka (t) 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is certification of recognition by other scientists. The rewritten version should handle the copyright violation concerns. I am wondering if the former votes for deletion are now valid, or need to be reviewed. Also, I am wondering how many of those voting for deletion are qualified to evaluate the work of a cryobiologist/medical physicist. --Ben Best 15:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the Talk:Brian Wowk page a number of references made by others to the work of Dr. Wowk. I hope this indicates to you the high regard with which others view his work. And I believe that it should satisfy your requirements. I can add that I know there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people who are not all scientists who nonetheless hold the work of Dr. Wowk in high regard. --Ben Best 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep revised - He is not just another cryobiologist, he is a major name in the field. The original article did not make his importance clear, but it now surely does. If anyone who has voted for deletion truly thinks that being "co-developer with Greg Fahy [no less] of key technologies enabling cryopreservation of large and complex tissues, including the first successful vitrification and transplantation of a mammalian organ (kidney)" is not "notable", I would truly love to hear your reasons! While Ben Best's documenting of references to him in the media helps make the point, his work with Fahy on vitrification really does not need to be bolstered by "fame references"... anyone who knows the meaning of the words in the quote above (first paragraph in the article as of this writing) should be able to see why an article on Wowk in Wikipedia is completely appropriate. Allan Randall 02:13, 24 February 2006 (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.