Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Wood


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

John C. Wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable professor, weasel words: "the impressive monograph" and unsourced "leading expert" EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. A h-index of 18 seems just enough for WP:PROF, given that he is not in a highly-cited field. There are 311 citations of his book. -- 120.23.76.162 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. 120.23.76.162 has already said what I would like to say about his citations being high enough in a low-citation subject. And most of the nomination complaints amount to bad writing (and inappropriate copying of a turn of phrase from one of the sources), not a reason for deletion. But the festschrift in the external links also goes a long way to convincing me that he is indeed a significant player in his research area. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A festschrift published by a notable organization from a conference in his honor is a statement of his notability by his respected peers. Who are we to argue? MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. To add, WoS shows around 500 cumulative citations, which is significant in areas of pure mathematics. Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (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.