Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Novak

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. Addhoc (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Novak[edit]

Probable COI creator (Tpnovak (talk · contribs)); "Tom Novak" has 3,110 ghits, I don't do too much with bio AfDs, so not sure what people think of 3k+ ghits; does not appear to be notable, only reason for inclusion would be the published works? OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 05:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what a dreadful photograph. There definitely needs to be some references to support the article's claim that Mr Novak has worked at virtually every significant university in North America. Unfortunately, Google is relatively quiet on the matter, and even his own CV shows this his roles at Vanderblit have been relatively minor. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he doesn't meet WP:PROF. Lankiveil (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, fails WP:PROF. STORMTRACKER 94 12:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "not sourced" isn't valid for deletion anyway. I found http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=1286 and http://www.internetretailer.com/internet/marketing-conference/92844-retail-romance.html in the first page of googling. The topic may seem a bit obscure, but there are plenty of edu and others writing about him. Pharmboy (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — for the reasons given by Pharmboy. GreenGourd (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharmboy. Sunder land 06 12:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has only about 20 publications in Web of Science, but those got a total of over 1000 citatons in other scientific publications and the most-cited articles got 379, 165, and 152 citations. Could somebody get rid of that horrible photo?? Aryticle definitely could be improved upon.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs) 13:07, 29 December 2007 (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.