Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Thorn

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. AfD withdrawn by nom, abundant evidence of notability. Pigman☿ 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thorn[edit]

I denied Speedy Deletion for this one because it wasn't obvious as to his notability or nn. After some fairly obvious Google[1] and G News searches[2], I was unable to come up with anything substantial WP:V. Loosely fails WP:BIO at this point unless you believe all professors are automatically notable. I can't judge his impact on his field without more info. Pigman☿ 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar comes up with very high citation counts for "CB Thorn"; the top-cited articles are 1875, 430, 307, 302, 257.[3] This historical overview by Peter Goddard [4] supports his importance in the early development of string theory, as does the fact that there's a theorem named for him: Goddard–Thorn theorem. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cool. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw my nomination with these facts in hand. I'll try to integrate some of the info into the article so it doesn't seem so bare of supporting WP:V info. I guess I could close the AfD? Thanks, Pigman☿ 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest speedy closing this one. The Goddard article would seem a good reference to add to support his notability, and linking to Goddard–Thorn theorem (I think = proof of non-existence of ghosts) would be useful. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already linked the theorem in the article. I'm going to put your searches on the talk page as a ref for more research. Pigman☿ 22:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per above discussion. Certainly satisfies WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (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.