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.
Courcelles 01:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't think he passes
WP:PROF (the most likely criterion is #C7, impact outside academia in his academic capacity, but we'd need sources documenting the actual impact he has made) nor
WP:GNG. The sources are a mixture of self-published ones (e.g. his university web sites) and reliable news articles that are not actually about him, but mention him in passing or quote him. I don't think that's enough. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep for his role as a regulator. David E and I usually agree about academics; this is one of the borderline cases where we sometimes do not. DGG (
talk ) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Weak delete borderline article, possible
WP:COI on part of creator.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 08:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:ACADEMIC; Google scholar finds very few articles with very few cites, and he is only an associate professor at UTS.
[1] Fails
WP:BIO; I could not find anything at all about him at Google News Archive. --
MelanieN (
talk) 23:07, 4 September 2011 (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.