Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wikswo

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Wikswo[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the notability requirements for an academic as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Daesnsieatble (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)— Daesnsieatble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly and obviously passes the notability requirements for an academic as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), contrary to the nominator. In particular, he has a named chair at Vanderbilt (#C5), has a Google scholar h-index of 43 with nine papers cited 100 times or more [1] (#C1), and is a fellow of five major academic societies (#C3). Any one of these would be enough by itself for a pass. A bad nomination from a new user whose only contribution under this name has been to make this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Eppstein shows he meets notability guidelines for academics. The article is currently lacking references to independent reliable sources, but his research has been reported on various websites/publications.[2][3][4][5][6]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, the above two editors say it all. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite obviously passes the notability requirements, as demonstrated by David Eppstein and Colapeninsula. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Just to pile-on, WoS shows an h-index of 35 with a citation list of 223, 217, 213, ... conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as above. spa nominator has made 3 edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2014 (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.