Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Kerner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus; but there appears to be little need to delete, as if a full article isn't possible then it can just be a redirect to Three phase traffic theory (whose notability isn't questioned here). Which is left up to the normal workings of discussion and consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Kerner[edit]
What is this article exactly?!! Not notable, no references, no citations, does not pass WP:STUB, reads like a CV and much more! Meno25 00:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless references are provided. Nick Graves 00:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is mentioned in an article in The Economist. It is always worthwhile to check Google before nominating an article for deletion. --Eastmain 00:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless references are provided, delete per nom. Bigtop 01:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Mergeinto Three phase traffic theory per WP:PROF: "Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." ~ trialsanderrors 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to Keep after checking his citation record. His 1998 paper is his magnum opus with 114 cites, but he's got a couple of others on traffic flow with ~50 cites each. Notable enough for me. ~ trialsanderrors 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Trialsanderrors -Savant45 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, but maybe a merge. Seems like a one trick pony.--Eva bd 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but include more relevant information and sources Alf photoman 18:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep One of the standard tests is "publishes more than the average college professor." Since the page on his theory seems well-written, and he appears to be mentioned in places like the Economist, it should stay. However, it is currently just a stub and should be improved to indicate other research he's done and some additional background. Tarinth 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepper trialsanderrors--Slogankid 21:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Who on earth would ever want to look at this, besides his friends. Recreate when there's come actual content. Maddy626 09:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete still no references, ghits appear to be the one article & personal writings (and links thereto). SkierRMH,22:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Shawn in Montreal 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. Notable enough, as trialsanderrors has demonstrated. Should be expanded, of course, but just about any article starts out as a stub. OinkOink 22:41, 23 December 2006 (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.