Deletion of David Madore (2nd nomination)

Comment: because I am the person involved, but I have some comments to make.  Evidently I do not meet the criteria of , and evidently this article could be an embarrassment for me since it makes me sound like some kind of academic crackpot.  (I have no idea of who wrote it, by the way.  I never edited it myself.)  On the other hand, I strongly think that if this article goes, the one on Unlambda should go as well; this I say as a Wikipedia user: I've always thought that there should be at least a stub article for the creator/instigator/inventor/main author of every single item/event/fact/invention/work which itself has an article on WP, and this would simplify the debates on notability&mdash;but obviously the folks who decide on the notability criteria think differently, so this opinion is worthless anyway.  One thing I have a hard time imagining, however, is why people invest energy in having articles deleted which like this one are fairly short and at least have the merit of containing nothing wrong or contentious, when those on&mdash;say&mdash;Charles Musès notable for his Musean hypernumbers (not only is this one nonsense, but it has great potential for confusion) haven't been nominated for deletion even once.  I mean, I agree that deleting some articles can be as constructive as augmenting others, but the priority order seems strange (especially as the article has already been around for some time, and some people have spent a little effort in editing it).  But at this point, a loud booming voice thunders: &ldquo;you are not notable!&rdquo; and I vanish in a puff of logic
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)