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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS —Whouk (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Satir[edit]

Non-notable; reads like a vanity page Devious Viper 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly reads like a vanity page, but there may be some assertion of notability here. Plenty of google hits, including journal articles. Abstain from me for now. BillC 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Peter Satir who is very notable (albeit in a somewhat specialised field) - see e.g. [1]. If necessary a separate article on Birgit Satir can be created but I wouldn't want to prejudge its possible notability. Dlyons493 Talk 12:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Peter Satir looks notable, but this article is terrible. it sounds like a vanity page or a newspaper article, and has no sources. Peter and Birgit should have seperate articles. -Samael775 20:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've Moved it to Peter Satir and edited Birgit's independent career out. The article still needs improvement but I think there's now a basis to work from. Dlyons493 Talk 21:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. ILovePlankton 19:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now that Peter and Birgit Satir has been moved to Peter Satir, I am changing the heading of this AfD, though the name of it will still remain the same. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:PROF by a substantial margin - not even a list of publications, let alone an assertion of notability. Might even scrape an A7. Tevildo 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dlyons493's reference, and expand to include proof of his notability, which apparently exists. My apologies for being too quick off the mark earlier. Tevildo 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At least, 'til someone comes through and writes an actual article. The existing article is little more than a Huh? --The Editrix 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's now more like an article, could still use some work. Dlyons493 Talk
• Delete — Still reads like a vanity and fails WP:BIO. Article has been up for over four months, so there's been plenty of time to prove notability and it's not there. --Satori Son 16:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He has 117 PubMed hits and 60 Google Scholar hits. Links are in the article. Dlyons493 Talk

• Keep Seems notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence that he's substantially more than an average academic. Vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:50, 26 June 2006 (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.