Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel G. Malti


 * 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. --- RockMFR 00:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Michel G. Malti

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article does not show that he satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. No sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources. I also looked him up on Google; nothing.Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC ukexpat (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep That 1930 book is still in over 90 libraries. It probably was a notable textbook in its day. Absence from google is nonsense a a criterion here for someone with a career in the first third on the 20th century.DGG (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep    Here is a bio on the occasion of his retirement from Cornell.John Z (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if you search for Michel Malti at the New York Times Archive, you get this 1939 article; the free preview indicates that an important 102 year old electric power problem unsolvable since Faraday was just solved by "research men" at Cornell, likely including Malti; someone with free access should check. The Cornell retirement bio indicates he was a pioneer in engineering research there.John Z (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The free preview of the Washington Post article on the same discovery of a "New Way to 'Balance' Dynamos" says that "Prof. Malti and Dr. Herzog Discover New Method of Winding Coils Which Should Save Industry Millions for New Dies".John Z (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable acedemic, I have written more papers than him, and i don't know any proffesors who haven't contributed to a textbook. Is insufficient to confer notability, unless all acedemics are inherently notable.Yobmod (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think most academics have discoveries reported in the nation's two most respected newspapers, apparently for solving a century old problem, perhaps posed by Faraday himself. This seems to qualify him under WP:ACADEMIC, esp criterion 5. The sole paper he has in IEEE Xplore is    from 1963, at the end of his career.  However, IEEE Xplore covers "IEEE journals, transactions, letters, and magazines from 1988 with select content back to 1913.", so that it is "select content" can argue for notability. I trust DGG's professional judgment that the number of libraries his 1930 textbook is still in probably indicates it was a major textbook in its day, and his point of the difficulty of assessing people with a career decades ago by their web presence is quite valid, this kind of "internetism" and Recentism is a serious systematic bias.John Z (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It's exceedingly difficult to make an accurate determination as to the notability of someone from the earlier part of the 20th century using only free online sources.  That said, the research above is enough evidence for me to give it the benefit of the doubt.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2008 (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.