Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isidor Sauers


 * 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...it's not often you see a deletion debate where (essentially) only the article creator wants the article deleted... &mdash; Scientizzle 03:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Isidor Sauers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I, the author-- in good faith-- request deletion of this article. Winick88 (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G7 (author requests deletion), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably doesn't meet the criteria - there have been a considerable number of edits to the page by other editors. Having said that, I'll support a delete, since notability is probably below borderline for this one. Grutness...wha?  00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as Google Scholar shows multiple publications, but only one has as many as a couple dozen citations. Doesn't seem to meet WP:PROFTEST. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Inadequate article. But he';s notable. The article neglected to mention that he has 60 peer-reviewed publications over many years, on many related subjects, both theoretical and practical. The most cited was in Journal of Chemical Physics, 88 times. -- I've added it. A notable career. Obviously, if it were just the single patent, it wouldn't be notable. But even GS shows more than that--15 entries. DGG (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep based on material added by DGG. Hal peridol (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the article. Winick88 (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that one editor cannot vouch for the accuracy of the article is not grounds for deletion. It would help if you explained why you changed your mind on the necessity of this article; given the number of bad reasons to delete an article, it couldn't hurt.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep; DGG does seem to show some notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He meets criterium 3 for academic notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:BIO now based on recent changes to the article. RFerreira 07:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per DGG. The article production and citation rates would be rather modest if this were in the life sciences, but I guess it is different in this field. --Crusio 12:08, 2 December 2007 (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.