Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Trevathan

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 Speedy Keep as, since the user themselves is not stating anything else other than "no notability" (which is in fact convincing for WP:PROF, considering the dean position but also a national "CDC position", which is enough) and then concerns about a resume (which can also be taken care of if in fact notable); there's then nothing to suggest deletion. The "notability" tag itself should have been removed considering the listed information, not nominated for AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Trevathan[edit]

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

No indication of notability/reads like a resume Woodshed (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is indeed somewhat poorly written and SPA-created, to boot. But the subject has an enormous, well-cited research record (h-index around 25). No question that he is notable. Agricola44 (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Very strong citation record which shows significant impact in his field. Joe Roe (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- qualifies under WP:NACADEMIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2016 (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.