Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Romoser


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

William S. Romoser

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPROF. Only other claim to notability is that he wrote a paper claiming that there are insects on Mars, but that seems to fail WP:BLP1E. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ riley  (  talk  ) 06:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ~ riley  (  talk  ) 06:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - little evidence on hand to shore this one up as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Striking my "delete" based on discussion below - the article was obviously created because of recent notoriety over the bug silliness, but he sounds like his texts may have been noteworthy enough to pass - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The book has about 350 citations, and he has two articles with over 100 citations. That looks a bit marginal, but between that and the media attention from the insects-on-mars affair, there might well be enough notability for a keep vote.  My weak delete is per WP:BIODEL, where I'm interpreting the fact that he's set his webpage to private and stopped taking interview requests to mean that he'd likely also prefer not to have a Wikipedia page discussing his insects-on-mars poster. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As further evidence of a preference for privacy (whether on the subject or his institution's part) when I search for this incident I get stories about the university retracting the press release . I think this and the citation record for his other work is borderline enough that we should respect those wishes, however much fun insects on Mars might have been. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per the two previous comments. --Tataral (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. wrier of three major textbooks in his field. This qualifies by WP:PROF,. I se no reason why his other activities whould invalidate that.  DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If those are actually important texts in the field, that might sway me - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * David Gerard, The Science of Entomology has 350+ citations according to GS. I think that's enough to indicate notability.  I didn't see anything for the other two texts. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACADEMIC Csgir (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep passes WP:NPROF Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm looking to build a consensus:  The arguments for deletion (like my own) are that he's marginally notable, and may prefer not to have a Wikipedia article at this time.  The argument for keep is that he's notable, perhaps marginally.  Notability in both cases is mostly due to his textbook, supported by his articles and book chapters.  Since we don't actually have a preference from the subject, perhaps we should agree to keep, but speedily delete upon request from the subject? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep in the absence of request from the subject. I'm still concerned about the privacy issues, but also have come to think that we should not try to guess the subject's preference.  If he does request deletion as per WP:BIODEL, then the case for such deletion seems straightforward. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2020 (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.