Deletion of Teo Mora

Comment: I'm not sure it matters at this point, since the fundamental (and overall fairly weak) premise of the AfD discussion no longer applies, and therefore disqualifies many of the early delete !votes, meaning that no consensus (de facto keep) is probably the worse possible outcome. This is the part where normally I would brew a strong pot of coffee and try to improve the article, but I'm afraid my only mathematical background is in statistics (read graduate level spreadsheets) so I'd probably do more harm than good if I tried. Anyway, as I said at ANI, seems exceptionally well published, and probably meets  in principle, although it's not terribly well demonstrated in the article, which currently lacks substantial independent sources. In the case someone ever wants to really take the reins on this in the future, really do their homework, and argue against notability, I would probably be more comfortable with a close of '''no consensus''' anyway
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Just A Comment&trade; for now, but leaning keep, if the upgraded article is more satisfactory?https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teo_Mora&diff=773373050&oldid=773030599  Agree with some of the others above, who point out that Teo Mora does in fact satisfy , quite easily I would suggest.  I have cleaned up the article a bit to make this clearer and added two book-review .  (There was a related deletion on the Italian-language wikipedia in 2014, which if my guesstimate-translation is correct was "per not enough sources" but I cannot see the no-longer-visible article to verify.https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:Registri&type=&user=&page=Teo+Mora&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype=)  Mora is the 'M' in the FGLM algorithm of computer algebra, worked on the Gröbner fan concept, and has well-cited publications on Buchberger's algorithm, among other things.  His most well-cited work seems to revolve around Algebraic geometry#Computational algebraic geometry generally (and Gröbner basis specifically).  Mora has triple-digit cite-counts published by Springer, Elsevier, Association for Computing Machinery|ACM, Cambridge University Press, etc.  Professor for 27+ years at University of Genoa.  Slam-dunk bangkeep via  (see also ) especially ACADEMIC#1, (striking as no longer true)were it |not for the express wishes of professor
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:PROF||WP:SCHOLARSHIP||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:IAR)

Comment: I'm actually pretty torn on this. I respect the wishes of someone with an inconsequential stub to have it deleted, but what we have now is basically his CV, and |Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. I would have a hard time arguing against the stub in an honest uninvolved go at it, and with an eye for what it could be, but I also have a pretty hard time arguing for keep when what we're keeping is little more than a list of publications with almost zero prose
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTRESUME)

Comment: per #C1 now that Mora no longer requests the article to be deleted. As I said in my earlier (now struck) comment, he passes #C1 because of his many highly-cited publications
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)