Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl W. Gottschalk

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The result was nomination withdrawn and no voices for other than keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl W. Gottschalk

NN individual fails WP:PROF Hipocrite (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per addtl info. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that the content is notable and verifiable. What do you need more ? Click on the links to see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_W._Gottschalk.--JeanandJane (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/2/63 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanandJane (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

http://www.lib.unc.edu/rbc/kidney/gottschalk.html Please check before you delete.

http://www.asn-online.org/grants_and_funding/gottschalk-Grant.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanandJane (talk • contribs) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/3/620 One more. http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct97/gotts.html --JeanandJane (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Distinguished Research Professor of Medicine and Physiology. and holder of a named chair in medicine at UNC Chapel Hill? Just needs expansion: start by inserting those refs into the article, right now. The nom brought it here, I notice with some surprise, even after the refs above were supplied on the talk p. More should have been written in the first place, but it's a tenable stub even as it is, meeting WP:PROF because of the Chair. DGG (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clear pass of many WP:PROF criteria (any one of which would be enough for a keep). NAS Fellow, named chair, journal articles describing his work, etc., etc. Why was this nominated? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article looked very different when it was nominated. The nominator still should've done more research or at least specify which criteria they thought it failed, but the nomination wasn't as off as you might think based on the current version. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think I wouldn't know this, since I'm the one who made most of those changes. I might add, I made the changes after I made the comment above. It may not have been stated in the article, but it was clear from the sources JeanandJane had already left on the article's talk page prior to the nomination, if only the nominator had bothered to look at them. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- PS I just found and linked the NY Times obit. That's usually another automatic keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep per DGG and David Eppstein, clearly above the usual bar for a pass of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Is this a joke? This bio obviously meets multiple criteria of WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 08:47, 6 March 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.