Deletion of Michael Somos

Comment: I was in the same quandary as Agricola44 regarding this. The subject has a grand total of 18 citations on HPoP, with an h-index of 2. Yet, the term “Somos sequence” has 329 citations and an h-index of 11, also on HPoP. And I wouldn’t be surprised if different searches for ideas by the subject would uncover many more hits. In other words, the idea (or ideas) lives on and is cited, but not with reference to its originator or the original article. I guess some great mathematicians who have WP articles (e.g., Niels Henrik Abel, admittedly from another era) have low citations and h-indexes, but when one looks at citations to their ideas, they are much, much higher. Bottom line: I think the subject meets  criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), although in an unorthodox way
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: into an (as-yet-nonexistent, but easily stubbed out) article on Somos sequences, which are a notable topic in mathematics (see http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Somos+sequence%22 Google scholar search results) even though Somos himself seems hard to find sufficient sourcing about. This seems to be a case of  and redirects are cheap
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: I'm not sure that getting something named for him should be the criterion; not everything gets named after someone who actually had anything to do with inventing it. But if the person did invent something which is mentioned in a secondary source it seems to me that that would qualify as "significant impact" to satisfy . I would be happier there were more secondary sources other than MathWorld cited though. I do have an issue with the lack of biographical material in the article however. No date and place of birth, nothing about where he got his degree, etc. To me, notable subject or not, you should at least have some basic facts before creating an article, otherwise you might as well just put the name on the requested articles list. But presumably that info can be found and added to the article so it's a fixable issue and shouldn't be deleted for that reason
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)