Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Forster (geneticist)

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Forster (geneticist)

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

Clearly promotional than indication of importance of subject. Itsalleasy (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for lack of a valid deletion rationale. The nominator's "promotional" nomination is a classic argument without an argument: here it appears only to mean that we have an article that mentions the accomplishments of its subject; by referring to the motivation for the article and not to its content it is an ad-hominem argument and vioaltes WP:AGF; and it fails to refer to WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. In any case the subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited pubs with the top one being cited 3500+ times on Google scholar) and #C3 (member Leopoldina).—David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and carry out WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Nom is taking these things too easy... Clear pass of WP:PROF. Article needs cleanup to comply with WP:MOSBIO and to move the references inline (looks like it has been translated from the German WP, where they do referencing a bit differently from here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Definitely meets the standards of WP:Prof#C1 and clearly notability in field has been established. BerkeleyLaw1979 00:42, 28 January 2014 (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.