Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter M. Haas

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter M. Haas

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

Fails WP:PROF. A tenured professor at UMass, otherwise does not rise above the crowd. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar citation search results include nine publications with 100 or more citations; it looks like a clear pass of WP:PROF #1. Alternatively, if one believes that epistemic communities are a notable topic (a belief well supported by Google scholar), his research comes out as the top three results on that topic in Google scholar, so he is notable as the world's top expert in a notable topic. And the review of his book in The Hindu hints that he may also pass WP:PROF #7. (I don't think the visiting position counts for #5, though.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. Top GS cites are 2159, 421, 438, 410..., h index = 23, way above minimum. This AfD is a waste of time. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, appears to meet WP:PROF pretty easily, per User:David Eppstein's comment above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and possibly other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2009 (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.