Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Wildt

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Wildt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lacks WP:GNG. Not yet ready for Mainspace Jenyire2 (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jenyire2 (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom, does not meet GNG. Zero references for the extreme claims made in the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems clearly notable to me.... added a couple of basic refs and brief cats. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - citation count alone makes him pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion isn't cleanup. He is notable, although I agree this is a very bare bones article. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify -- an interesting subject with potential, who fits notability standards as discussed above, but not ready for prime time. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has 14,603 citations across 7,180 documents and an h-index of 66. Literally in the first page of Google hits there are these obituaries for him published by a couple international organizations, in a major journal, and in a newspaper that could easily fill out this page. Even before his death, an "encyclopedia" maintained by ASU offered a very large profile on him. JoelleJay (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:NPROF, and plausible GNG per obits in independent reliable sources. The article is a short stub, but otherwise appears to be in reasonable shape. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications on Google Scholar) and WP:GNG (multiple independent in-depth sources about him, already in the article). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2021 (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.