Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Kerner

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. Flawed nomination, snow, withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kerner

[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)

~~WP:OR, lacks independent sources. No real proof that person has existed. Also, WP:Notability Mausebru (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. MausebruTheYeeter (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment please refrain from using secondary accounts to vote twice. --hroest 18:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I was just posting the same thing... using two accounts to !vote at AfD is not allowed. Second !vote removed.--- Possibly (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I thought somebody was working on this article to make it more in line with Wikipedia's standards, I thought it was just taking a long time since the person (User:DGG) was involved on many other fronts. This was discussed several weeks ago in the TeaHouse. JacquesKerner (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JacquesKerner: it's a volunteer operation here, and there is no guarantee that anyone will do any needed work ever, nor is there an expectation that they will do it. --- Possibly (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: Thanks, I realize and appreciate the volunteer nature of Wikipedia, that there is no guarantee of progress on this article. It's not clear to me whether that means that such a draft should be deleted, or after how long it should be deleted if there is inactivity. My understanding was that I was not best qualified to make further edits due to my inexperience with gathering valid references, but I was hopeful User:DGG or some other volunteer might. Totally understand nothing happened of course. If the draft must be deleted due to inactivity, so be it, I can learn to gather better references without a draft too.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No doubt he exists and is a reputable mathematician. Here his ID on MR https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet/MRAuthorID/100500. Also no doubt he satisfied Wikipedia's notability criterion for professors. The problem is will anyone finish writing his biography, in particular what his contribution is to the fields in which he works and its significance, rather than lists of where he worked etc. Billlion (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep he appears to meet NPROF, with six books and over 200 journal articles. Click the "publications" tab on this link. proper sourcing is an issue though.--- Possibly (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep due to lack of WP:BEFORE - no real proof the person has existed? Somebody who has written over 70 peer reviewed articles may not have existed, this is one of the most ill-advised AfD nominations I have yet seen. Also, clearly notable per WP:NPROF#1, per GS he has an h-index of 33 and 12 papers with 100+ citations in a low-citation field (mathematics). --hroest 18:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I accepted this from draft, he is clearly a notable academic, sourcing can always be improved. Theroadislong (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: clearly meets WP:NPROF CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but extensively improveMausebru (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mausebru: I guess that means withdrawn? So far you have nominated the article for deletion, created a second account (MausebruTheYeeter) to support the nom, and finally struck your nomination and !voted keep. This strongly suggests that you should probably not make more AfD noms until you understand the process.--- Possibly (talk) 18:38, 10 May 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.