Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Fürer

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fürer[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)

Unreferenced and subject simply does not pass WP:BIO. Looked up "Martin Furer" and "Martin Furer + computer scientist" and found 2 or 3 sources stating that "a pair of Australian mathematicians...", otherwise he's just an educator. I considered moving to draftspace, however I think it's futile if there are no reliable sources to help improve the page. shelovesneo (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would the nominator care to comment if the subject's citation record on Scholar has relevance to WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, enough highly cited publications [1] to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. The integer multiplication algorithm is the splashiest (e.g. reported in major mainstream media [2]) but far from the only significant contribution. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This is a new article and appears to be in good faith, let's give it a chance to breathe before deleting. Professors have several paths to notability. If not draftify, I lean weak keep because we have some signal pointing toward WP:ACADEMIC -- decent citation counts per Google Scholar [3], especially on [4] and [5]. —siro χ o 16:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
weak Keep, decent GS profile for his field, with 7 publication that have 100+ citations this should be good enough to pass WP:PROF#1 even though its a close call. --hroest 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think WP:PROF#C1 is met. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2023 (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.