Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Schaffert

: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. Consensus following relist is to keep. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

=[[Sebastian Schaffert]]=

:{{la|Sebastian Schaffert}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sebastian_Schaffert Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Sebastian Schaffert}})

BLP with lack of secondary sources. May need evaluating against WP:PROF. Appears borderline N with COI promo (likely undisclosed autobiog + obvious meat as main contribs). Widefox; talk 14:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment I don't know a lot about publication patterns in this field, but it sounds like a case could be made for WP:PROF criterion 1 with an [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EofVNskAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao h-index of 20] and at least five papers cited more than 100 times. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. What he's notable for is something he's no longer doing, academic research, but notability is not temporary. And I agree with EricEnfermero that the highly-cited papers (and ten-year test-of-time award) are enough for WP:PROF#C1. His position as CTO of Redlink and his current position at Google are probably not notable but that doesn't matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep as all of this seems to become notable and acceptable, satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. Surely not a deletion priority at this time, SwisterTwister talk 08:57, 15 December 2015 (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.