Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas H. Haines

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. (non-admin closure) MarginalCost (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas H. Haines[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)

Fails WP:GNG. Not many sources on the article to support his notability. With regrard to WP:PROF however, he has had honors and fellowship appointments, as substantiated in this document on his website, however I couldn't find any independent, secondary sources to verify his notability. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 04:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject born in the year of 1933, pre internet ear, thus digital RS is not easy to be found. Google scholar [1] and Mendeley [2] show many citation of subject's works passes NACADEMIC#4. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found him in my copy of Who's Who in America (2011), and that's enough for me to presume notability (see #Selection process). His CV says he's also in International Who's Who (2005-present), but I can't confirm. Needs cleanup and more sources - such as the awards section not referring to his personal website. -- Netoholic @ 09:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. "Who's Who" is a vanity scam that is neither usable as a reliable source nor usable as an indicator of notability. None of the other fellowships and awards listed on his cv rise to the level of notability either, and in fact the inclusion of Who's Who on the cv makes me view it as less reliable than usual. Also, I don't understand the call-out to WP:PROF#C4 above; that one is for textbook authors. But he has sufficient citations to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who in America is a respected biographical dictionary and perfectly useful to fulfill WP:ANYBIO#3. You are confusing the respected reference with Who's Who scams which use the name of the respected reference to fool people. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Based on citation record, 5 publications with 100+ citations should be close but above the threshold. Clearly his research had an impact on the field. hroest 19:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 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.