Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Strehl (2nd nomination)

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Strehl

[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)

Subject fails WP:GNG. WP:NACADEMIC #1 is the closest shot at notability, but his h-index sits at 12 per Google Scholar, with no meaningful results on Scopus. It is important to distinguish him from Alexander L. Strehl, who appears to be a different computer scientist. The subject's bio at University of Aalen differs substantially from information available on A.L. Strehl, and his PhD is from University of Texas, while A.L.'s is from Rutgers. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based purely on that one paper. 4000 cites for what looks like a novel methodology description (not a review or a textbook) would seem to translate into "substantial impact on the field". Not enchanted with the essentially WP:BLP1E status and the original genesis as an autobio, but there you go. - Note: it's a bit weird that we would very likely make this a redirect to the BLP1E event/topic (Consensus_clustering#Hard_ensemble_clustering) for an author, singer, celebrity etc., but we don't for academics. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The h-index is low for a computer scientist, but beyond that one paper there's another paper with nearly 1000, two more with over 100 (one single-authored), and two more with close to 100. I think it's enough for WP:PROF and spread out enough to avoid WP:BIO1E problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPROF#1 Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 7 December 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.