Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olaf Storaasli

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. Sandstein 20:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Storaasli[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)

Article reads like a resume and appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Links currently on page appear to all point to personal webpages, are dead links, and/or are his published papers. Conducted WP:BEFORE and could not find any coverage of significance. Rehsarb (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Computing. Rehsarb (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS record perhaps not spectacular in this highly cited field, but he has worked in areas of the private sector.where he may not have published much. Passes Prof and GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - It does indeed read like a resume. Author Olaftn is possibly Olaf Storaasli himself. He once worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tenneesse= Olaf tn. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ I'm not seeing WP:PROF or the GNG met. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- After the cleanup I'm much less sure. I don't think the GNG is met (at least I'm not seeing independent, reliable coverage) but I do think might meet WP:ACADEMIC #1. Hobit (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that I've cleaned up this article a bit and removed some of the fluff, I do see WP:PROF in the citation rate and GNG in the impact of the subject's work in high-performance computing, same as Xxanthippe. Qflib (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (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.