Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alvin Seale

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. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Seale[edit]

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

Non-notable person, article written in a promotional way. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An obituary in Science is enough to convince me of notability, but we also have a second obituary providing the multiple reliable sources needed for WP:GNG. And judging by Google scholar his works are still well cited despite their age, so I think he also passes WP:PROF#C1, even though that criterion is aimed more at current academics than at long-past ones. When we have articles on people known for their expertise on something, and these articles have proper sources saying that they are known for their expertise, it is not promotional to call them an expert. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable ichthyologist. Linked from 87 other articles on fishes (most (all?) of which he described scientifically, and there are many other fishes he described that lack Wikipedia articles). Tone of article is a little promotional, but that being poorly written isn't grounds for deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Sourcing is good; obituary in Science and pdf on California Academy of Sciences. Has been dead for almost 60 years and the standard of sourcing is appropriate for a scientist of his time period. The nomination is about as absurd as they come. Le petit fromage (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2015 (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.