Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Murray (physiologist)

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. Tone 18:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Murray (physiologist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Andrew Murray (physiologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLPs probably shouldn't sit around with notability questions for more than a decade. I was unable to find WP:Independent sources that discuss this person. He was quoted in the news when a different Cambridge alumnus won a prize, but aside from confirming his job title and employer's name, the few independent sources I could find do not describe him. I'd be very happy to have this nomination declined on WP:HEY grounds. (Watch out for the many wrong Andrew Murrays; I found that Andrew Murray Cambridge -tennis was a useful search string.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Both enough Google Scholar citations for WP:PROF#C1 and enough popular-press articles about his research for #C7. I removed some unsourced personal details from the article (for which I could not find sources despite searching) and replaced them with more material on his research. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with David Eppstein. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, more than enough evidence on show thanks to David Eppstein's work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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.