Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winfield Hill

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. I see a consensus to keep, as arguments have been made that the subject meets both WP:PROF#C4 and WP:PROF#C1. No one has contested that, so as it stands, I believe consensus exists to keep. (non-admin closure) --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 17:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield Hill

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source cited is to a self-published website; an outside search did not turn up significant coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert any of the significant points in the criteria under WP:PROF and it's been flagged for years as problematic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His book The Art of Electronics has huge citations on Google Scholar (over 5000); see e.g. [1] or [2] for a recent review. (His other citation counts are not so impressive, especially if you exclude patents.) In fact, I think a lot of the difficulty with finding more material for the article is that the book is so successful that it drowns out all other search results. With one notable book and not much else I would normally suggest redirecting to an article on the book, but I think that directing an institute at Harvard, being a co-author on a widely-publicized technique for catalyzing CO [3], and founding a company whose instruments are the subject of multiple independent publications [4] [5] [6] should be enough to save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some more reviews of the book at doi:10.1017/S0263574700010717 and doi:10.1113/expphysiol.1981.sp002597. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Horowitz and Hill" is one of those texts that is so standard, it is known by the authors' names. It's canonical, like "Jackson" for electromagnetism or "Nielsen and Chuang/Mike and Ike" for quantum information. You'll find it in syllabi all over the place — [7][8][9][10][11][12], and then I stopped looking. That's a pass of WP:PROF#C4. Any "only notable for the one thing" concerns are alleviated by the other points raised by David Eppstein above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not "only notable for the one thing" but "only notable for the one event". Most notable people are only notable for one thing. Having 5000 sources citing him is 5000 events, not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to The Art of Electronics since that's what he's primarily known for. b uidhe 00:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.