Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Simshauser

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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Simshauser[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not supported by multiple published, reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:BLPNOTE and does not meet criteria for WP:NACADEMICS. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early, his GS Profile is promising, but not enough to clear WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short CV with no assertion of notability other than his work is widely cited. This would pass, if true, but WoS shows only 30 cummulative citations on 9 papers (h-index 4). So, I agree that this one is WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only assertion of significance in the article is that his publications are well cited, but his Google scholar profile shows citation numbers that do not bear this out (at least by the usual standards of academic deletion discussions here). I don't see any other evidence of passing one of the WP:PROF criteria in his academic bio nor of passing WP:GNG for his non-academic work. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Short of academic impact and not otherwise noteworthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2014 (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.