Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Freedman

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, snowball outcome.(non-admin closure) Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Freedman[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:ANYBIO due to lack of reliable secondary sources which give significantly indepth criticism and analysis of the subject and their work. Ferkingstad (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NPROF as an ACM Fellow. Ferkingstad, the ACM reference shows that the society did in depth analysis of the subject and his work. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ferkingstad is a new editor whose first article was deleted today. He immediately nominated for deletion seven articles by Aranya, the first editor to comment in that discussion. I have asked him to withdraw the nominations. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep wrong notability criterion in nomination (should be WP:PROF not WP:GNG), obvious pass of WP:PROF#C1 (heavily cited publications) as well as #C3 for the ACM Fellow, and suggestion above that this is a bad-faith nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Obvious pass of WP:PROF, as argued above. Whether or not the nomination was made in good faith, it seems to have been done without due diligence. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And after reading User_talk:Ferkingstad#Your nominations for deletion, I'm going to go with "bad faith". XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, clearly meets NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:NPROF. I also recommend that the nominator be taken to WP:ANI for such obvious retribution nominations. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clear pass of WP:Prof plus a WP:Trout. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 21 August 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.