Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rarity


 * 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.  Singu larity  06:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

John_Rarity
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Questionable notability; I feel page needs to go through AfD Marcus22 (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability enough for me.  Sting_au   Talk  12:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

* Delete Well, the subject matter sure looks impressive. But are two papers from the 1990's and a part-authorship of a book sufficient for an academic? My feeling is not. But I'm happy to be convinced otherwise and would then change my vote. Marcus22 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and views. Esp. David Eppstein. I'm convinced and I'll change my vote to a Keep.  Marcus22 (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seven papers with over 100 citations, one as recent as 2002 (it's unlikely, given that record, that he's slowed down more recently, and more likely that his newer papers just haven't had time to collect as many citations). The 2002 paper made major newspaper stories: USA Today, The Telegraph. Senior faculty member with a very repectable publication record, looks like a pass of WP:PROF #3 and #4 to me. And with this award, possibly also WP:PROF #6. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per David Eppstein. --Crusio (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep independent sources and citation info linked by David Eppstein are enough to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as this easily passes WP:PROF without question. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per David Eppstein: notable prof, at a reputable University, with solid work, and with recognition. But the article needs some cleanup and markup. — Turgidson (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2007 (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.