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 close Beerest355 Talk 15:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wolff[edit]

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

I failed to find significant reliable sources after a Google search. Plenty of first-party ones, but nothing independent of the subject proves he is notable. Beerest355 Talk 21:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Stunningly high cites on Google scholar. Please will nominator explain why he ignored these? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please give some examples of the third-party sources you're talking about. Beerest355 Talk 03:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the link above and read WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of self-published work, but little to establish notability. Beerest355 Talk 04:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you had understood WP:Prof#C1, where the matter is spelled out clearly, you would not need to make that comment. See also Citation index. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Beerest, when you click the little scholar link, you see the little numbers like "Cited by 1013" below each entry? If you then click on those you will get to thousands of sources, usually by other people, that cite Wolff's work. The problem with academics like this is not too few sources, but too many (and finding the good ones among many trivial mentions). That's why we have criteria like WP:PROF#C1, to shortcut discussions like this one where there are so many sources that we can make a presumption of notability without having to go through those thousands of citations one by one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 I'm seeing a lot of nontrivial coverage of his research in Google news search e.g. The New York Times (2001), The New York Times (2005), Newsweek (paywalled). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 12 July 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.