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. Per WP:SNOW. Near-unanimous consensus that the article subject meets multiple WP:NACADEMIC criteria. (non-admin closure) Leviv ich 17:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Perfit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Contested Prod. The article has not been edited in approximately two years and simply says he is a “geologist, currently a distinguished professor at the University of Florida.” The editor who contested the prod disagreed with my reason that based on the evidence presented, there was no evidence to indicate notability compared to hundreds if not thousands of other geologists. My thinking was, and still is, if no one has expanded the article in two years, no one probably would. So, unless someone updates the article with verifiable, reliable sources of such things as publications or geological field work, then simply being a professor is not enough, IMHO. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep The editor who contested the PROD did so with reference to a notability guideline, which it would have been useful to refer to before bringing it to AfD. The subject is a distinguished professor, and so meets WP:PROF#C5. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• NB This relates to Michael Perfit, but seems to be appearing under the AfD above that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Moved to correct position RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 07:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Maybe simply being a professor is not enough, but being a distinguished professor certainly is, and I cited the guideline that says so when I contested the WP:PROD tag. The length of time since this was edited, and the length of the article, have no bearing whatsoever on whether it should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With over 10,000 GS cites a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. A misguided nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Keep As a distinguished professor meets NACADEMIC#5 and Google scholar citations show over 100K work cited thus passes NACADEMIC#1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is headed for a snow keep. Maybe the nominator would like to withdraw it? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk)
  • Also WP:PROF#C3 and possibly WP:PROF#C7/WP:AUTHOR. The sources now in the article are enough to expand it, too. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RebeccaGreen. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to satisfying WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5, the subject is also an elected fellow of the Geological Society of America (I added a ref), so also passes WP:PROF#C3. Suggest an early close. Nsk92 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article does a poor job of making a case for meeting WP:GNG, but a search through Google Scholar shows that he easily meets WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs improvement, but he clearly passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. --Tataral (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is the type of "article" that WP:PROF in its present form fails to prevent from appearing in the encyclopedia. No reliable, independent sources from which to establish notability. The most newspaper coverage I've found of this subject is in local Florida papers where he was occasionally quoted when a volcano fires up somewhere in the world (but none in the last 20 years though), or mentioned as recently as 2007 as being a mentor for science fair participants. All of his Google Scholar citations are from multi-author papers - nothing independently notable. This will sit here forever, never being improved beyond a stub. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't you notice that your recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability was overwhelmingly rejected just a few days ago? Have a bit of self-awareness. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CCC, and this is a great example of how PROF is failing us. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• lots of "keeps/speedy keeps", most citing WP:PROF, 1 "delete", stating wp:prof is broken and WP:CCC (that consensus changes), doesn't look like any time soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Over 10,000 citations, and an h-index of 56, and an elected fellow of the GSA, he clearly passes NACADEMIC. – bradv🍁 03:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:PROF for reasons given by others above, article has been improved to show this (also meets WP:NAUTHOR, well known books, with multiple reviews (others are available) cited in the article), can a mopper please put this afd to sleep? or better still the nominator (hi MensanDeltiologist:)) could close it early, btw, nominator may like to have another look at the following: WP:ARTN, WP:BEFORE (especially as the prod was contested), and WP:PROF (that has consensus). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2019 (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.