Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Burkhardt III

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 delete. The one "keep" only links to search results, which aren't the specific sources we usually look for. Sandstein 06:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Burkhardt III

[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)

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). He founded a couple computer companies which have their own articles, but I don't see significant coverage of his life beyond an obituary. ^Falling_Gravity 17:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 17:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as academic. See this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not actually notable as an academic as Google Scholar returns patent applications. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 13:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GScholar h-index of 10. Papers with 112, 92, 86, 83, 79, 79, 57, 50, 22 and 17 cites. It is true that some of these citations are by other people's patents (not sure how many as he is also cited by journals). I am not sure what our attitude to patents is. I am not sure if we have policy for that. James500 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (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.

Henry Burkhardt III

zproxy.org