Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Milo

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) asilvering (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Milo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, basically a curriculum vitae of an undoubtedly busy and successful academic. Not sure if any of the claimed awards are significant. I'm struggling to find independent reliable sources about Milo or his work. The article strikes me as being created on Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. Sionk (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [1] 52,000 cites, h-index of 79. Curbon7 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Overwhelming pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Nominations like this do not add to the reputation of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Beyond the citation counts, it is not difficult to find major-media coverage of his research (contrary to the nomination statement), enough I think to justify a claim of WP:PROF#C7. Examples: The Guardian on quantifying human-caused destruction of wildlife; Nature on the proportion of bacteria to human cells in the body; BBC on the relative masses of human artifacts and biological organisms. The article is badly sourced but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like an easy pass of WP:NPROF. As David Eppstein said, WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all above. This nomination is a clear WP:NEXIST failure. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW Marokwitz (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should never have been proposed for deletion. Ron Milo is notable by any reasonable standards and will become more so. Athel cb (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The citation style in the article is one of the worst I have seen for a scientist. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2024 (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.