Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Winget

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. Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don Winget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Almost no information. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While short, the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC point #5 (holding a named chair post). —Kbabej (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. Nomination provides no WP:DELREASON. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He appears to mostly publish as "D. E. Winget"; searching Google Scholar for that author name [1] finds citation counts 512, 404, 357, 327, ..., easily good enough for WP:PROF#C1 on top of the pass of #C5 already clear from the as-nominated article. I don't think the Trumpler Award [2] contributes much more towards notability but it should also be mentioned in the article. Also, WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the comments above, clearly satisfies WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. I have expanded the article a bit, with the refs to a couple of newsarticles about his work and also the info about his 1987 Newton Lacy Pierce Prize in Astronomy. The article can certainly be expanded further. I suggest that the nominator consider withdrawing this nomination to save everybody some time. Nsk92 (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as passing multiple PROF criteria (C1 due to citations, C5 due to named chair).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Almost no information is better than no information. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since he clearly meets Academic notability #5. For what it is worth though do we distinguish named professorships from named chairs? A few weeks ago I noticed that the J. Reuben Clark Law School has both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets several criteria for NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The reason stated in the nomination is not valid. no WP:DELREASON --Kemalcan (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2021 (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.