Deletion of Frank Duckworth

Comment: as the Duckworth (INES) scale of risk has generated coverage outside academia and could also be worthy of coverage in Wikipedia (perhaps not a separate article but as a section of e.g. risk perception). It therefore avoids possible duplication to have brief biographical info on him at one place rather than merging. I'm not so sure about Lewis though: Extending the spirit of  to "one thing" rather than "one event" suggests there's no need for a separate article on Lewis. An http://web.archive.org/web/20080115192812/http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/bs/profile.asp?id=p0072504 archived copy of his page at Oxford Brookes University gives no indication that he's worked on anything else of encyclopedic interest apart from Duckworth-Lewis or that he would pass  on other grounds, so I think one or two sentences on him in the Duckworth-Lewis article would suffice
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E||WP:PROF)

Comment: I think they pass  #7 (significant non-academic impact of an academic work). Note that, although Duckworth's a fellow of the RSS, that only means that he pays an annual membership fee (it's not an elected honor) so he doesn't also pass #3, and I don't think RSS News is enough for #8. But there is also enough press that's specifically about Duckworth (and not just about his cricket scoring system), as I've added to the article, that I think he passes  in his own right and should also be kept for that reason: if a New York Times headline calls someone a star, I think it's safe to conclude that they're notable. I haven't put as much effort into Lewis' article but I'm pretty sure it should be kept for all the same reasons
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO)