Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ervin Fodor


 * 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. Since there is a "clear consensus to keep", WP:BIODEL does not apply. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ervin Fodor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm tagging this article for an AFD deletion discussion because two editors, one a created account and the other an IP, have asked for this article to be deleted through speedy deletion and through a PROD, stating that it contains incorrect information and also that they do not want an article on Wikipedia. The identity of these accounts has not been confirmed but I thought I'd bring the issue to AFD to see if there is a good argument for keeping this article should the subject wish to see it deleted. This isn't a typical AFD rationale but in 8 years I've only encountered a subject asking for article deletion 2 or 3 times before so I think it's worth considering the request. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a weird one because Fodor certainly seems to be an influential and highly-cited scientist in whom the public (and by extension WP) could have a legitimate interest, but the article is most peculiar. It writes as though his significance were entirely the receipt of one award, rather than his work. It would be helpful if the account/IP could specify what is the incorrect information. I would be more inclined to correct and expand the information than delete the article. Formally, I haven't counted his citations but note that he has a Nature review article, and he is also listed as a fellow of the academy of medical sciences, which is probably already enough to establish notability. Elemimele (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep this person seems to unambiguously meet at least three of the criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC - he's a fellow of a prestigious society, the recipient of a major award, and his research clearly seems to have made an impact on his scholarly discipline. While the article needs to be careful to follow WP:BLP guidelines, of course, I can't see any rationale for deleting it. PianoDan (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof, even in a high-cited field. I don't see anything offensive about the BLP. What is the incorrect information? I guess that some people like to preserve their privacy. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC).
 * Keep. He does seem to be a notable virologist based on list of publications and H index of 59. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reasons provided by the initiator of the proposal, no doubt with noble intentions, are entirely speculative. We have no way of knowing if the subject himself asks for deletion. Therefore, WP:BIODEL cannot be invoked and, since that is the basis for the AfD proposal, we cannot accept deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2021 (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.