Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat Keohane

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. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Keohane[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Claim that being a Special Assistant to the President is basically a third level staff position. Article cites academic career as enought to establish notability; however, there is no evidence he was a tenured professor or he meets criteria in WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep environmental expert often quoted and interviewed. Plain Google searches: [1][2][3][4][5][6] He has a lot of hits in the Congressional Hearing Transcript Database meaning he participated in various capacities at Congressional Hearings. He was a guest on CNN Tonight with anchor Erica Hill (12/07/2009) pretty lengthy. There's 19 hits on NewsBank in newspapers around the country, of those about 5 already mentioned. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query Did you look at the G-scholar hits? Dloh cierekim 16:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What I saw a number of thanks listings of his name, but admittedly I did not look at every listing. reddogsix (talk)

Delete. It's not GS hits that are important, it's cites, and these are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has had a lot of updates since it was nominated for deletion. The inclusion of about almost a dozen citations from independent and reliable sources demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Although the Congressional testimony, in itself, is not independent (Congressional testimony is a primary source), it does demonstrate the subject's importance as having "made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", per WP:PROF Criteria #7. - tucoxn\^talk 07:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sigh AfD as a route to improvement. Dloh cierekim 14:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and "good job" to the improvers. While I would prefer stronger WP:RS, the subject is notable. Dloh cierekim 14:36, 7 September 2013 (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.