Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karst Hoogsteen

: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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

=[[Karst Hoogsteen]]=

:{{la|Karst Hoogsteen}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Karst Hoogsteen}})

Notability of this article is in question. –BuickCenturyDriver 19:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

::And your reasons based on Wikipedia policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC).

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. When I first saw the article it looked like utter crankery, but Hoogsteen pairs really are notable (maybe 500 hits for that phrase in Google scholar), and (assuming it's the same Karst Hoogsteen) he has citation counts of 1234, 271, 264, 210, etc., a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. But it seems very difficult to obtain any reliable information about him. He worked for Caltech in the 1950s? And later for Merck? Even that much is hazy. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. Six papers with over 100 cites each. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC).

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment If there's no more info on him, a merge to Hoogsteen base pair might be justified. It depends on whether there's a realistic likelihood of this article being significantly expanded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2013 (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.