Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Adelberger

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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Adelberger[edit]

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

Orphaned, and as far as I can tell, meets almost no criteria for notability. Hampton (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, KC Velaga ✉ 03:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 with 12 papers in GS with over 500 cites each. Nominator needs to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 10:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that subject passes WP:PROF ArchieOof (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely appears to meet WP:PROF C1 and article is sourced reliably. A Train^talk 22:53, 8 September 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.