In this article we will address the topic of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodroofe, which has generated great interest and debate among specialists and fans alike. For a long time,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodroofe has been the object of study and research in various fields, being a topic that transcends geographical and cultural barriers. Throughout history,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodroofe has played a crucial role in the lives of many people, influencing everything from individual decisions to major world events. Through this analysis, we will seek to understand the importance and impact that
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodroofe has had on our society, as well as explore new perspectives and approaches that allow us to delve deeper into its meaning and relevance today.
- 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. Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Michael Woodroofe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
COI Created by @RussWoodroofe clear relation and bias is contained in the article. High citation count in a high citation field, hopefully we can get this resolved quickly and correctly. COIN not opened since this appears to be the only conflict of interest and we can discuss it here with others. KxHarmonic (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The subject meets WP:NPROF and nom does not present a valid rationale for deletion. Although the article creator has a COI, he went through the proper channel and vetted the article through AfC (accepted by Jovanmilic97). The article could use some cleanup but does not seem overly promotional. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. A shame that COI was used here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC).
- Snow keep. Passes WP:PROF criteria #1 (many heavily cited publications), #5 (named professorship), #8 (journal editor), and arguably #3 (IMS fellow). There is no COI-based deletion rationale to be made from writing a draft, getting it accepted, and after that only doing one minor and unproblematic edit. I note that the nomination was created by a single-purpose account, I hope not in retaliation for an editing dispute. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:02, 6 June 2021 (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.