Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheldon Pinnell (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Pinnell

AfDs for this article:

[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)

~~Seems non-notable. Was deleted in a prior AfD but recreated. I removed a list of patents with bogus references.~~ RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With 33 papers with more than 100 cites on GS passes WP:Prof#C1 even in this highly cited field. See second AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: per WP:PROF. He held a named professorship and his work was highly cited. This was already discussed in the second AfD and on the talkpage... TJMSmith (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and North Carolina. TJMSmith (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Named professor easily passes WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3. Vague nomination statement doesn't even address or attempt to refute the clear case for notability made in AFD 2 or indicate why anything might have changed since then. More, it's outright misleading by summarizing only the outcome of AFD 1 and giving the false impression that this was the only outcome of past AFDs. And its claim of "bogus references" appears to merely be that the official US patent database changed its url format and turned previously-valid references into deadlinks, although I agree with the removal of the indiscriminate patent listing. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A Scopus h-index of 44 with over 7,000 citations for work done in the pre-Web era would probably be enough for criterion 1 of the academics wiki-notability guideline, and the named professorship qualifies for criterion number 5. The nomination presents a partial and misleading picture of the prior deletion-discussion history, since the second go-around included arguments for passing multiple criteria of the relevant guideline and ended with the nominator withdrawing. All in all, I think the No accurate deletion rationale has been provided clause of the speedy-keep conditions has been met. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2022 (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.