Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Maley

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Maley

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

Notability not demonstrated. Two references, one dead, the other to a site that barely mentions him (brief info at http://cancer.ucsf.edu/people/profiles/maley_carlo.3321, nothing at http://cancer.ucsf.edu/about/leadership) Dweller (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a good run down here: https://sols.asu.edu/people/carlo-c-maley I am not sure if he is notable but his work is interesting and, as far as I can tell, original. The article is probably promotional but maybe he has something to shout about. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unquestionable keep, meets WP:PROF as an expert in his field on two grounds: first, on the basis of the citation record: his most cited papers have 876, 848, 413, 235, 188, 183 citations. Even in biomedicine where citation s are high, 2 papers with over 100 citations each has always been enough here to show status as an expert, and this is many times that. His expert status is also shown by being the director of a major laboratory at one of the most important medical schools in the world. citations. the article is incompetent, and was clearly written in ignorance of our practices and our standarda, but it should have been fixed, not nominated for deletion. The GNG is irrelevant if it meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all of this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 00:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, if you can add something to the article, I'd be happy to withdraw the nom and call for this to be speedy kept. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2016 (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.