Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Bryan (scientist) (3rd nomination)

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 as an early keep per WP:SNOW. There is very clear consensus that this article should be kept. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Bryan (scientist)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not pass NPROF or NAUTHOR. Most of the results on google are self-promotional links. Natureium (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe anything has changed here from the findings of fact during the past two nominations - this guy has been cited a lot [1], to the extent that he passes notability requirements on WP:PROF#C1 alone. Article clearly needs some love, but you can't argue with 4 articles with >500 cites, and a couple dozen with >100. That is "significant impact on the discipline". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as the last two times. Which were, in both cases, that this is a bad nomination that falsely claims that the subject does not pass NPROF when it is clear that they do pass criterion C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to overturn the consensus of the last go-around. XOR'easter (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Article's a bit of a mess, but deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, who is going to drive the snowplough and close this quickly? Coolabahapple (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Put the time into improving page, instead of rerunning endless AfDs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:45, 8 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.