Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grant Edmund Cardon


 * 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Grant Edmund Cardon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the subject is a perfectly respectable professor and scientist, I find no evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR, either in article or externally. Sources I've found are all affiliated or trivial/passing mentions, and article is padded with unsourced personal details that suggests creator is associated with the subject. Until independent, reliable sources recognize his accomplishments, an encyclopedia article is unwarranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No discredit to the subject but there is minimal coverage of him in news sources and there is little to find on his publications, confirming lack of notability. Meatsgains (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  18:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  sst ✈  18:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing in the article provides enough of a claim of notability, his citation counts in Google scholar are not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF, and I don't see any other source of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The article mentions his position in the Soil Science Society of America, which does seem notable. He is also editor of a journal. The article could use additional sources, but this is better than the average soil scientist. Dimadick (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. President of that society would be notable,and so would editor-in-chief of their major journal, but not just "associate editor of one of their journals." People who want to add to our coverage of this field shoul write articles of scientists with the  clearest indications of notability DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for now''' at best as this is not yet better satisfying the notability guidelines, aside from that he's apparently a university professor. SwisterTwister   talk  06:30, 9 January 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.