Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Siegler

: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The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

=[[Mark Siegler]]=

:{{la|Mark Siegler}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Mark Siegler}})

One reference for this BLP, and it is not even about the person. Unlikely that notability will be established. Page editor claims the subject's bio on the U of Chicago page establishes notability, though it is biased to talk up the subject. AstroCog (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep - The NY Times article goes into a reasonable amount of detail about the subject, and whether it is nominally "about him" or a monetary gift that he inspired is unimportant in my opinion. The significant media coverage of him in connection with this gift, combined with a large enough body of work to meet criterion #1 of WP:ACADEMIC [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1429&bih=998&q=%22Mark%20Siegler%22&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=810l1482l0l1737l3l3l0l0l0l0l163l427l0.3l3l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp] seals this one for me. VQuakr (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep (author) - subject is definitely notable with criterion #5 (distinguished professor[http://www.uchospitals.edu/physicians/mark-siegler.html]) of WP:PROF. Jesanj (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per VQuakr and Jesanj. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep with a GS h index of 47 which gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. An absurd nomination and a trout for the nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Keep Not a great article yet, perhaps, but the subject is clearly a notable academic, as pointed out above. Let it grow, let it grow, let it grow. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment Fair enough. I can go ahead and withdraw this AfD nomination since it looks like a snowball keep. AstroCog (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (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.