Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Ash (engineer)

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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ash (engineer)[edit]

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

Fails Prof test, low-level academic sourced only to his own university's bio Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although he has quite a few accomplishments, my searches found no better sourcing than this, this and this. Pinging DGG and David Eppstein for comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Google scholar (for author:rl-ash) finds citation counts of 170, 150, 100, etc., probably enough for WP:PROF#C1, and his university has listed him as an "Eminent Scholar" since 1989, an honor given to a small fraction of its full professors that is possibly enough for #C5. Also he has spoken at "manly locations" [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The standard for academics is usually WP:PROf, not WP:GNG. The conventional number of references for showing notability under the GNG is unnecessary--all that is necessary is to show the person is an authority in his subject. G-searches may or may not find anything beyond their official web page, but it doesn;t much matter, because theat page is a sufficiently reliable authority for biographical information. . This is normally done by the citations to the person's published works; for engineers, this is normally peer-reviewed journal articles and, in some specialties conference papers of equivalent stature. A/c Google Scholar, his most cited paper has been referred to 170 times, then 150, 119, 100, 93 73, 71, 65 etc. --in most fields, anyone with one of more papers with ≥ 100 citations is notable. (David E removed the excessive list of publications; I've added back those 3 ≥most highly cited papers to the article;

It is a reasonably safe assumption that full professors at a major research institution are always notable--of all those brought here in the last 5 years,only a very few have been deleted, either because WPedians think their subject field is unimportant, or prejudice against those who have unpopular views on controversial issues. Old Dominion is a research university, though not the very highest level--it's listed at a high intensity research university, not a very-high intensity research university --see List of research universities in the United States. In practice, these too count as major--very few have been deleted. It certainly did not justify the nom saying he was a "low-level academic". An appropriate example of low-level academic is an Assistant Professor in a 2-year college. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, by the logic that a full professor at a research university should be considered notable. Roches (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2015 (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.