Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Burchell

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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan_Burchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Insufficient reliable, independent and secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 13:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a GS h-index of 20 passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a lot of mainstream newspaper articles about his research results in highbeam, several in papers as big as The Independent, over a wide range of years. So as well as what Xxanthippe says above (which I agree with), I think he passes WP:PROF#C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2012 (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.