Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Costas Panagopolous


 * 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)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  02:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Costas Panagopoulos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet the requirements of WP:NACADEMICS for (talk)  16:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. for  (talk)  16:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. for  (talk)  16:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Searches may have been hampered by a misspelling of the subject's name, which I have fixed. With an h-index of 21, he may pass WP:PROF, but the case for WP:PROF as editor-in-chief of a notable journal seems clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As DE notes above, WP:PROF is satisfied here. In addition, there are 814 hits for his name in GNews. The name is fairly unique, so I don't think there are many false positives there. After looking at a fairly large sample of those hits, they basically all seem to be instances of mainstream news media quoting his opinions on various matters as a political scientist. So probably also passes WP:PROF on those grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as argued above he seems to pass criterias 7 and 8 of WP:PROF Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As above.--Ipigott (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion. --Dcirovic (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion as well. -- there seems to be consensus that notability has been established, can we delete the notice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:85:C201:774E:A111:FF67:5797:DC8F (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we need to wait for the discussion period to end (in a couple more days) and for an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator to close the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.