Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Buehl


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. Nominator withdrew this AfD. (non-admin closure) --  Dane talk  20:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Michael Buehl

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail all 9 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Borderline promotional article as well. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. Please close. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS shows an h-index of 47, which I think should pass regardless of field. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Quantum chemistry is a very highly cited field, but this person, with twenty papers on GS with over 100 cites clearly passes WP:Prof. Nominator is advised to study WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC).
 * (after edit conflict) Keep. Certainly does not "appear to fail" criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC, based on the link provided by EricEnfermero which is the very first hit in the Google Scholar search spoon-fed by the nomination process. Whatever led the nominator to believe that the subject appeared to fail that? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The very high citations/h-index is well beyond what we usually take to pass WP:PROF. Doesn't seem particularly promotional to me, but that can always be fixed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only case seems to be for high citations for his work (I can't find a lot of press or awards) but that should be good enough. If the article is kept it should be moved to Michael Bühl, the proper spelling of his name (e.g. the name he uses on his web site ). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suggest that the nom withdraw the nomination and allow an admin to close the AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep and move per David Eppstein. I gave it a quick edit to cut out the instances of promotional tone. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2017 (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.