Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin C. E. Stuart


 * 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America1000 05:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Gavin C. E. Stuart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a medical school academic, supported solely by his own staff profile on the website of his own institution (a primary source that cannot confer notability) with no indication of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. This is not a position that confers an exemption from our sourcing requirements -- no matter what notability an article claims, it's the sourcing that determines whether it's a keepable article or not. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be upgraded to an acceptable minimum standard -- but it can't be kept in this state. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable medical academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep h-index of 20 and one paper with 738 cites, just passes WP:Prof in highly cited field. What media, except science journals, does the nominator expect to cover the work of a a research scientist? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC).
 * There has to be something somewhere. No claim of notability ever confers an exemption from having to be reliably sourceable somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ? There are over 1000 sources that cite him on GS. Click on the link. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Any comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC).


 * Keep. Member of CAHS is a pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as the Dean of a major university such as British Columbia is enough. SwisterTwister   talk  06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * keep per Eppstein, Twister & Xxanthippe. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:00, 29 April 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.