Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Z. Altshuler

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. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Z. Altshuler

[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)

Clear-cut case of person notable for one event, sadly his passing. Information in article mainly based on obituaries from primary sources, including a paid obituary listing that appeared in the New York Times. Article also created by user now banned for UPE. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know the user who created the page was banned for undisclosed paid editing and violating the TOU, this article looks notable to me. –Cupper52^Discuss! 18:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The New York Times obituary appears to be a listing paid for by the family, but the Dallas Morning News one seems not [1]. And wiki-notability would not be based on his death, but on his career, per WP:PROF. A Google Scholar search finds at least six publications by him with triple-digit citation counts, so a WP:PROF#C1 pass looks possible. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, while the article creator was blocked for UPE, I'm not sure whether the UPE extended to this article (the discussions leading up to the block seem to be about other things). Perhaps the blocking admin Bilby can weigh in. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Sorry, but yes - this article was also UPE. The job ad was posted on 19 January. I didn;t focus on this one, though, as my focus was on the medical material that the editor was being paid to post. - Bilby (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for clarifying! From the User Talk page, I couldn't tell one way or the other. XOR'easter (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is absolutely WP:NOTBLP1E and probably one of the stranger 1E claims I've seen; "obituary as source" does not mean "notable only for death" (obituaries serve as quite a convenient summary of professional and biographical information). Clear NPROF pass. The origin of the article being unfortunate doesn't spell its end. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cupper52. Steam5 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would say he does not pass PROF C1 due to his below-average credentials in the context of a very high-citation, high-publication field. Among the 60+ coauthors (with 10 or more publications) of his three highest-cited and three most recent papers according to Scopus, I've calculated the median, average, and Altshuler's values for a few parameters: Total citations: med: 6390, avg: 13849, A: 5035; Total publications: med: 117, avg: 191, A: 64; h-index: med: 35, avg: 45, A: 25. However, his faculty positions and professional appointments as head of various national organizations likely push him into weak notability through other PROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per JoelleJay and Cupper52, ignoring potential UPE by past editors involved in the article's creation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:03, 15 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.