Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Bryan (scientist)

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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bryan (scientist)

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

See WorldCat and also here, my searches have found nothing noticeably better at all and other of my searches not listed also found nothing else. Notifying past tagger and recent user DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 16 papers with over 100 GS cites passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:Prof#C1 per having been a part of the authorship of a substantial number of scholarly articles (48 counted in Google Scholar), and many of the articles have significant citation rates. For example, This paper is cited in 183 documents. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for a shoddy nomination. As Xxanthippe already stated, and as anyone else doing the same search would see, the subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. I am unable to even explain this nomination except to hypothesize that the nominator saw the phrase "assistant professor" and stopped there, not even trying to do a search for the author's name on Google scholar, despite claiming to do so in the nom. (The subject, it should be noted, is not actually an assistant professor, but an industry researcher with a courtesy title.) A hint to the lack of attention in making this nomination is given in the author's contributions, where seven edits relating to the creation of this AfD are sandwiched so tightly between two other deletion nominations that the software shows no difference in their timestamps. Another hint (typical for all of this editor's contributions to AfD) is a statement so vague that it could be cut and pasted on any other AfD, with nothing in the nomination statement specific to the actual subject of the nomination. That is not the thoughtful attention to notability that we should hope for in the creation of a discussion that is supposed to occupy the attention of multiple other editors for a period of at least a week. And a WP:TROUT to the nominator in addition, for being so miserly of their own time that they end up wasting ours instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, lack of WP:BEFORE by the usual suspects... Cavarrone 08:48, 11 June 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.