Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Reh

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. - Bobet 11:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Reh

This appears to be a professor who does research, who gets grants from various foundations, and who publishes articles, putting him on the same level as virtually every professor in the country. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which is a guideline, not policy) for a general consensus on what constitutes a notable academic. Dylan 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Large body of papers (over 100) published in refereed journals, meeting criterion 3. Co-author of a textbook. On scientific review panels, meeting criterion 1. Received awards in his field, meeting criterion 7. Full professor at prestigious university, meets criterion 9. Has accomplished far more than "virtually every other professor."Edison 02:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient evidence of meeting levels of significance and being well-known as outlined by WP:PROF. Awards, textbook authorship etc. seem to fall short of WP:PROF criteria Bwithh 02:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Subject has multiple articles with 100+ cites (incl Science and Nature). Weak keep because the article reads like a Who's Who entry, so someone should point out what the guy is known for. Profs aren't notable ex officio. ~ trialsanderrors 06:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. The nom errs in this statement: "See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (which is a guideline, not policy) for a general consensus on what constitutes a notable academic." The cited page is neither a policy nor a guideline, but a proposal that has not achieved consensus. I for one consider it too restrictive. JamesMLane t c 11:03, 24 October 2006 (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.