Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter A. Wolff

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 speedy keep. I have decided to close this since fellow Wikipedians decided to keep this article and I am happy now with the sources given here. (non-admin closure) Abishe (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Wolff

[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 and underlinked. The article doesn't have even a single source. The author of the article is also blocked since 2008. Abishe (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Director of a (now-former) national laboratory and author of a Nature article with 8,500 (!) citations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pi.1415926535. I found sources fairly easily and he looks to me like an easy pass for GNG and for WP:PROF. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now has sources, and is otherwise in better shape than the article creator left it in 2007 (all edits since its creation have been by other people). Manually adding up his Google Scholar h-index, I get a value of 46, indicating a pass of WP:PROF#C1. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On a procedural note: why does the block status of the article creator matter for a deletion discussion? It doesn't seem that the article creator was blocked for having created this page, and I'm not sure that it's germane. (I will also note that an article not having sources doesn't actually say anything about the subject's notability). Gilded Snail (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The two published obituaries are adequate for the content of the article, and Google Scholar shows an overwhelming pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2020 (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.