Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Baars


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding arguments to delete. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bernard Baars

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

vanity article of not-notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothughthomas (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. GS cites 695, 373, 251....etc. h index = 34, easily passes Wp:Prof #1. Incompetent and time wasting nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep. The version of the article at the time of nomination was rather vanity-infested, but it doesn't take much Google Scholar/Books/News search to establish notability. Take for instance this NYT article from 1984, or this in New Scientist from 2002.  Favonian (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. WoS query "Author=(Baars B*) Refined by: [excluding] Institutions=(LAKE OSWEGO PUBL LIB) Timespan=All Years Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" (the exlcusion filters-out a different individual named ill Baars) shows 90 peer-reviewed publications with citations of 117, 74, 70, 54,... with an h-index of 16. This is well within the pass range for WP:PROF #1 alone. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep (CHANGED VOTE). With the significant and proactive editing done by User:Cirt I am able to digest the topic in a fuller and fairer light. Also, two of the above comments (not the one that said "incompetent and time wasting nomination") have presented a compelling enough case that I have changed my mind, and my vote, to Keep. Nothughthomas (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.