Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Winternitz

: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. Non-admin closure. — neuro^(talk) 20:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

=[[Wilhelm Winternitz]]=

:{{la|Wilhelm Winternitz}} ([{{fullurl:Wilhelm Winternitz|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Winternitz}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Does not appear to have any real claim to notability. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This is a grandfathered entry from the 1901-1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. The fact that there was an article about this guy in a printed encyclopedia is, by itself, already sufficient to pass our WP:BIO requirements. Further, a cursory googlebooks search reveals plenty of coverage: 551 hits[http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&q=%22Wilhelm%20Winternitz%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wp], quite a few with specific and detailed coverage. Item 2 on this googlebooks result list (an article from Boston Medical and Surgical Journal) reads: "Its leadership in this branch of therapeutics was due to Wilhelm Winternitz, justly called the father of scientific hydrotherapy". I don't think there is a need to go further. The article would certainly benefit from expansion, but that is not a reason for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
keep per Nsk92, Jewish Encyclopedia entry demonstrates reliable coverage of him as a subject in reliable tertiary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per above. Articles on long dead academics are very rarely deletion material. They don't do much spamming and self-promotion.John Z (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep per all of the above. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep - subject of a biography in a notable encyclopaedia. Why second guess that? Wily D 10:45, 23 October 2008 (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.