Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul John Ellis


 * 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. Withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure)  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul John Ellis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:PROF. Has one publication (don't know how important it is) and was a professor. Google News search comes up with zilch. Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Next time do your homework before sending something to AFD. PJ Ellis has/had a Hirsch index 41 according to gscholar, which is pretty high, and indicates that he easily satisfies WP:PROF.TR 11:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Clear pass of WP:prof. Well known Physicist - looking at google scholar using "PJ Ellis", rather than "Paul John Ellis", shows lots of citations to lots of works. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Comment No time to look at this in detail, but an obituary in a scientific journal is rather exceptional and a red flag that this is almost certainly a notable person. And what does the nom mean with "has one publication"? I don't know of any professor with only one publication (perhaps, if true, that could be a claim for notability.. :-) Did the nominator do any research on this person before going to AfD? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only editor on this page who is civil is Msrasnw (who kindly left a note on my Talk page about searching for "PJ Ellis" rather than "Paul John Ellis" (which is what I did). The rest of you should drop the vitriol and improve articles like this one (as Msrasnw has already done a bit), which have no apparent notability as written. The Ellis article has seen virtually no work since its creation at the end of 2008 (three years ago). Because and only because of Msrasnw, I'll withdraw the nomination rather than letting it run its course.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2012 (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.