Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Gilly

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. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Gilly[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)

WP:ACADEMIC doesn't appear to be satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a Google search to see if I could find reliable sources. The sources don't appear to be independent of the subject. Interstellarity (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 for his well-cited research publications, and this in-depth profile in National Geographic also goes a long way towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS citations pass WP:Prof#1. Nominator is urged to carry out WP:Before in future. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per national geographic piece and WP:Prof#1 --DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what the others said above: The GoogleNews link [1] produces quite a few hits, with many examples of nontrivial coverage in national media, with several instances of in-depth coverage. Apart from the NatGeo profile mentioned by D.E., there was also an in-depth story about the subject and his research on NPR's Science Friday [2],[3], plus a story in Scientific American [4], at Live Science [5], etc. Taken together, IMO this coverage satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C7. Nsk92 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 for research publications Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep at the risk of piling on. WP:Prof#1 is met. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on what's found. I would invoke WP:HEY if all of that's added to at least the external links. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (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.