Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Zietz


 * 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 00:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Zietz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While not deeply problematic (there had been a couple obituary-like phrasings, which I've removed), and while I lack a good h-index calculator, the cite counts and locations of appearance of this fellow in Gscholar listings does not leave me to think he would beat the Average Professor Test. I don't see any of the specifics of WP:ACADEMIC being met, nor WP:BASIC. As someone with a previous math background, I would be delighted to be proven wrong, so, additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e deckertalk 05:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A GS h-index of 7, which one can count on one's fingers, is not enough to pass WP:Prof in applied mathematics. There seems to be not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing in the article as it stands adds up to notability. He does have one reasonably well cited paper, "Structured Light Using Pseudorandom Codes", but he's the fifth of six (non-alphabetical) authors on that one, so it's hard to use that alone as the basis for a claim of academic impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2014 (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.