Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Lerman

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. With more than 45,000 citations on GScholar, this is miles above our usual threshold for notability (from 1000-2000, depending on the field). As remarked by Xxanthippe, this meets more than one of the criteria in PROF. While we often delete bios on the request of the subject, we only do this is notability is marginal. This is obviously not the case here. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lerman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and possibly WP:PROF as well. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citation record looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1 (even disregarding the papers with the large numbers of coauthors), and his named position is a possible pass of WP:NPROF C5. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1, arguably #2, and #5 at least. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Named professor at an Ivy League university, clearly stated at the top of the article, is so obvious a pass of WP:PROF#C5 that the nominator's WP:VAGUEWAVE towards WP:PROF cannot be taken seriously. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there's a WP:G7 here. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- G7. The above user is correct. This is a G7. 2603:7000:2143:8500:780E:6CB0:A1E5:2E2C (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's had too much editing by others to be eligible for G7. What you want is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but for that you also need an argument that the subject's notability is only borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the G7 request, as this editor pointed out, it had not had too much editing to be eligible for G7 by anyone other than the creating editor. The editor who posted that comment - the only one commenting other than the proposing editor, wrote: "this looks like a relatively straight forward WP:G7 to me, rather than a WP:BLPSELF? Article has a bit of history, but if you strip out the AfC accept and the ping-pong over blanking, this is the only substantial editor." This is just an issue of it being properly posted, getting proper support for G7, but sitting waiting for action. I would urge deletion." 2603:7000:2143:8500:C5CE:2DC3:2A6C:8159 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets several categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2021 (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.