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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johndale Solem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Inadequately sourced BLP. Speedy deletion has been contested, so taking to AFD. A single interview is not sufficient documentation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The citation, which I added, show he is an authority of gammma ray lasers and imaging with soft srays. He seems to have published independently and with various people, not just the ones mentioned in the first draft. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete unless there is a lot of better information about this academic which has not been yet presented. The relevant guideline is WP:NACADEMICS - and looking down the list, the only criteria which seems to be in question is 1. And with less than 200 citations for his most cited publication since 1992, this is not a strong contender for the research "making a significant impact". If he had a professorship or a major prize or something, that would help. JMWt (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a much better biography pending review at User:GoldCar/sandbox. I have tried to move the sandbox into draft space, but am unable to move it over redirects. An alternative to deletion would be a history merge. As it is, this stub is standing in the way of improving the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Subject is clearly notable, and deletion is not cleanup. I could have sworn I asked UareNumber6 (the subject and author of the draft) to simply update the page itself (rather than creating a draft), but apparently nothing has been done to that effect. As a note, I've requested that the sandbox be merged into Draft:Johndale Solem, as the former was directly copied from the latter. Primefac (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears the Solem may be notable as an academic but I do not see the required significant coverage about this person that can elevate the article above the current stub. The draft at Draft:Johndale Solem is not acceptable. In its present state, it not only lacks inline citations but any citation that supports large portions of the biography. It has a long list of references -- to papers he published or mentions of the name -- but I do not see any significant coverage by independent reliable sources. It currently fails WP:BLP for its WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and lack of WP:V. Unless there are sources found which provide significant coverage, the draft cannot replace this article. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The publications showing up in Google Scholar and some of the non-promotional, non-lengthy information from the rejected draft could be integrated here. Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  22:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns of the reviewers. I will get to work to improve Draft:Johndale Solem. GoldCar (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As DGG says, his work on lasers has been cited enough that he passes WP:NSCHOLAR in my book. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY and DGG. Although it is still barely above a stub, I'd say he passes WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (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.