Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Daniel Johnson

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. Tone 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. Daniel Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

Search for C. Daniel Johnson: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Fails GNG- the content regarding his accomplishments is un-sourced or self-sourced and the numerous authority controls link to the same single article he published Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He is a full professor and editor of a notable academic journal, and therefore passes WP:NACADEMIC. Some of his publications can be seen at this PUBMED search and at this Google Scholar search. Note that there is another possibly notable CD Johnson, Charles D. Johnson of Texas A&M AgriLife. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a full professor does not contribute to NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. He has enough highly cited papers to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I found one published review of his review book [1]. But there seems very little to say about him beyond the primary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per keepers - published reviews of his written work, editor-in-chief of an academic journal - there enough to pass NPROF and keep a stub, but agree that anything about his achievements supported only by primary sources should be trimmed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 27 May 2019 (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.