Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Peto


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tim Peto

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Which of the criteria of the entire notability guideline page WP:PROF does this individual supposedly "fail?" See also WP:JUSTAPOLICY, WP:NOREASON and WP:Not notable. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Full professor at one of the world's leading universities, University of Oxford, seems to meet WP:PROF. However there is almost no information about him online.  --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep a specialist in infectious diseases at an important university, was cited by many reliable and notable sources: . --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep Meets WP:PROF -- anyone in this position is an expert in their field, and the citation record proves this. Though the article is incomplete, AfD is not necessary for improving it. The citations in Google Scholar   meet WP:PROF.  Citation counts f highest cited articles : 441, 413, 303,   281, 277, 253, 157, 127, 153, 148,  137, 129, 112, 105, 101 .... in Nature, BMJ, NE J Medicine -- the highest quality possible journals.  h=44.    The many articles shown above in google probably meet the the GNG as well. Expert not just in AIDS vaccine research but in malaria treatment and thalassemia.  The nom. actually listed this for speedy A7! (I consider  that speedy in particular as reckless to the point of being disruptive, since even if one completely rejects WP:PROF and completely rejects the very idea of WP:BEFORE, the article indicates at least some importance)  This a particularly absurd nomination, done   without the merest semblance of due care, and without any reasonable judgement. That an established editor at  Wikipedia should   nominate for deletion someone of his stature is to our discredit, and is the sort of thing that   makes us look absurd in our indifference to serious subjects in the world.   DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the argument of the extremely-fired-up-about-this DGG. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets our notability guidelines. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We are an encyclopaedia for goodness sake, not a Who's Who of the academic community! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unsure why it was thought to fail WP:PROF, although it would be useful to add some content to demonstrate his notability. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike DGG, I don't automatically assume that a professor at Cambridge is automatically notable, but all the same, I'd be baffled if it weren't so. WoS is down at the moment, but even taking the usual overcounting by GS into account, the citation data on Peto are impressive. I'm surprised by the reaction of the nom: first it is claimed that Peto fails WP:PROF, then when the opposite is shown, we get a complaint about not being Who's Who. Actually, we are a who's who of the whole friggin world: anybody notable should have an article here, that's what an encyclopedia (and a real Who's Who, not the vanity things out there) should be about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a bit of an odd case, because although he clearly passes WP:PROF it seems very difficult to source any of his professional history. However, I think there's enough about his research in the popular press (i.e. newspapers) to pass WP:GNG as well. I've added some of those sources to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - Per User:DGG's impressive rationale. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this article will be removed from Wikipedia, because the individual is notable, particularly per WP:PROF, criteria #1, and to a lesser degree, #5. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:56, 14 April 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.