Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul DeMaine (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Loose yet clear consensus to keep. The fact that it is unreferenced or uncategorized is irrelevant, as notability and the existence of sources should have been proven in this AfD. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Advanced search for: "Paul A. D. de Maine" | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
AfDs for this article:
- Paul A. D. de Maine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
Nominate for deletion Tagged as of doubtful notability for 5 years. AfD 5 years ago found 'no consensus to delete'. Unreferenced, orphaned article of unproven notability. Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:BIO - now that the article is at the correct name, searches of that name produce plenty of useful hits.--ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How much is "plenty"? We usually require around 1000. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Can any of these hits turn up a reliable source so the article is referenced at least? And how many hits are there? Thanks for looking into it. Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His textbook, Maine, Paul A. D., and Robert D. Seawright. Digital Computer Programs for Physical Chemistry, although published as far back as1963,is apparently still in over 300 academic libraries [1] Over 100 articles in Google scholar, with respectable citations for works published in the 60s and 70s, both in physical chemistry and in computer science., author of the review. After a time, work in a field gets incorporated into the body of knowledge, and what people cite are later works depending on it. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you help us find these articles in Google scholar? Using the search box at the right I find very few cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As DGG mentions, there are plenty of mentions. The subject clearly meets academic notability standards. Majoreditor (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I was going to close this as Keep, then saw that despite the mentions of sources above, the article is still a WP:UBLP... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What has that got to do with an AfD decision? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2013 (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.