Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Agnew

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. clear consensus for keep after the relisting DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Agnew

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 174.118.142.187, whose rationale was posted at the article's talk page and is reproduced verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation.... but, to be honest, it's hard to argue for keeping this article without sources, and I can find none in my admittedly brief search. YMMV. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a self-promotion article this article contains no references, links to other articles or has non-notable significance. It should not exist. I doubt we are going to start listing every employee that works in a university. Even the article text is hyped from the reference material supplied. The person is an Assistant Prof. What's next, janitorial staff? Somebody please delete this article. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the two fellowships listed in the article are enough — see WP:PROF#C3. It does seem a little odd to use that criterion for someone who is an associate professor (though the nominator's claim that he is an assistant prof seems to be incorrect), but confirmation that he's sufficiently notable is given by his citation record (one paper in Google scholar with nearly 300 cites, and two more with nearly 200). As for the insulting tone of the nomination: please see WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a book reference. It appears that probably he is well known only in the field of Wireless security. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Redlink fixed by Dricherby (talk) 10:36, 29 May 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, czar · · 01:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The membership criteria of the Canadian Academy of Engineering seem to meet the level of selectivity required by WP:PROF. Dricherby (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Special Notability Guideline for Professors, point C3, as mentioned above by David E. and Dricherby. This is a very nasty nomination in tone and it's not hard to suspect bad faith. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Taken with the above, WoS shows >200 cumulative cites. Agricola44 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:01, 29 May 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.