Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dror Paley

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. ✗plicit 13:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Paley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No independent article which discuss about the subject in depth, fails WP:GNG. doesn’t received any special achievement or any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as the article creator, I'm not particularly invested in this one. I basically created the article as an (unsolicited and unrewarded) favour for his then-webmaster because I thought a wikilink from Ilizarov apparatus would be better than a link to his website there; see the conversations at User talk:Szlimblengthening and my early-2009 talk page archive. I only ended up with the relevant articles on my watchlist due to unhelpful edits. I don't think I would have created this article under the same circumstances today, at least without doing a very deep WP:BEFORE check first. Graham87 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with this !vote counting as a delete, in case that makes things easier. Graham87 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe not, per below. Count it as nothing. Graham87 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. With an h-factor of 66 with the top two papers being solo author with 2041 & 1766 cites he passes WP:NPROF#C1. An award or two would help, but I think the case is clear enough plus there are not a gaggle of authors in the other well cited papers. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 2 November 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.