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.
Doesn't meet
WP:PROF or
WP:GNG. Successful academic but not notable. Has been in
CAT:NN for over 11 years, hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other.
Boleyn (
talk) 07:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. The citation record on Google Scholar shows 7 publications with over 100 citations each (and another close), enough to convince me of a pass of
WP:PROF#C1. And he has three major awards from three different organizations, each of which seems good enough for #C2 to me. I've cleaned up the article, which was written badly in a way that made him look like he was just a minor bureaucrat who retired; instead, he appears to have been a significant researcher whose research contributions have been widely recognized. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 19:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: based on high citations counts, and awards.
Earthianyogi (
talk) 11:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Withdraw nomination per excellent arguments above.
Boleyn (
talk) 12:57, 27 July 2020 (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.