Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hartung


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

John Hartung

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability. Two sentences. The article has been tagged for notability since June 2008. No 3rd-party sources. Orphan   Will Beback    talk    06:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Delete Keep, to allow the article to be expanded per the "keep" comments below.  Will Beback   talk    21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. BLPs we have to be strict. --Paularblaster (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability, and the presence of two religious stub categories refers to personal and private information. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep: I can't find significant coverage for this professor. Per ThaddeusB. Joe Chill (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep - A quick look at Gscholar and GBooks shows that the subject has had a significant impact on both his professional field and to a lesser degree on Atheist thought. (Not every link is him, obviously, but the majority are).  The article had additional (unsourced, but accurate) content before Will removed it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at the unsourced material from before, but even then I don't see anything that meets WP:BIO. Please add what you can find to the article.   Will Beback    talk    21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't have time this week, but if no one expands the article by AfD close it is probably a good candidate for incubation. I certainly wouldn't object to that outcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd be fine with me. At the moment the article would qualify for speedy delete, and it hasn't been improved despite having a tag for over a year. If no one is willing to improive it now then placing it in the "incubator" may rescure the article.   Will Beback    talk    01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep, absurd nomination, with no apparent attempt to establish notability -- which is in fact quite obvious. Article needs expansion, not deletion.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument of ThaddeusB. Particularly difficult to search, given the nature of his area of influence ad the fact that there are several prominent people sharing the name, but there is clearly coverage indicating his stature/influence, eg . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a short quotation in a newspaper article establishes notability, but I've chnaged my !vote to favor keeping the article to allow material showing notability to be added.   Will Beback    talk    21:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as an adequately but not exceptionally cited researcher, per WP:PROF #1. The article still looks like an A7 candidate, though. And its history doesn't make me confident that we can expand it without running into the same WP:BLP problems as before. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unusual record in that the subject has published well cited papers in anthropology, evolution, and anesthesiology. HPoP gives a total of 1,620 citations, three papers with more than 100 citations, and a respectable h-index of 22. Initially I thought that they were not from the same J. Hartung, but it turned out that they were. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed).--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added some text to the article about his position as the Associate Editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology, plus a refs. section.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Following on Eric Yurken's theme, his CV shows substantial interdisciplinary accomplishments. Also, an h-index of 22 is way into the pass range on WP:PROF #1. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (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.