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. On the basis that there may later be a compelling argument confirming the academic's notability per WP:NPOSSIBLE, as the academic has not retired yet. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 02:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Georg Essl

Georg Essl (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Assistant Professor does not meet WP:PROF JMHamo ( talk) 17:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Uncertain. Looking at whether he might qualify as WP:PROF-- From Goodle Scholar [1], his most cited papers have 279, 166, 78, 87, with h=21, but the most cited of them was part of a large group, and for many of the others he was the junior author to G Tzanetakis, who is definitely notable. The question is whether his non-academic importance in the field of computer music is great enough to be notable, and this need not correlate at all with academic rank. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep -- I agree w/ DGG that it's quite uncertain. These are actually very high citation numbers for computer music, btw. (I got tenure at MIT with nothing over 100), but whether they're high enough to go against the general principle that assistant professors w/o major coverage or major awards aren't generally notable, I'm not 100% sure. Jumping back to the old average professor test, yes, he's significant beyond that in terms of how well he's known in the field (personal knowledge). My sense is it's basically on the fence, but it's a well-written non-puffery article that we'd just need to recreate in a couple of years anyhow, so based on the even more general principle "does this help the encyclopedia?" I'll vote for a keep, but on pretty weak criteria. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep The numbers on google scholar, in what seems to be an insular and specialized field, are enough to push me over. User:Mscuthbert makes some good points; I wouldn't want this to be deleted only to be recreated in identical fashion three years later, when the subject definitely passes GNG. If it were promotional in the least, I would say delete, but it's not. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I've made this argument enough times that it finally seemed worthwhile to put my thoughts about it down in an essay. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep I think his level of contribution to his field causes him to pass prong one in the notability test for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:59, 13 December 2015 (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.