Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Mathis

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. So Why 13:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Mathis

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

This paleontologist doesn't seem especially notable. NAH 14:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: nominator; undemonstrated notoriety. NAH 14:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, we know. Your deletion nomination statement is your !vote. Please see WP:AFDFORMAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, apologies. Thank you for the link. NAH 15:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question for others is whether having played a key role in discovering or "describing" several extinct species would meet criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any sources on the subject or citations to his work. The paper cited in the article describes him as a private collector rather than a professional palaeontologist. – Joe (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two papers with single-digit citation counts do not amount to academic notability, even in the low-citation world of taxonomy. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Agree with David Eppstein. Nothing really passes even the lower bars of WP:PROF, even considering that taxonomy can be an overlooked field. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2017 (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.