Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Cohn


 * 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) sst ✈(conjugate) 14:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Neil Cohn

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This individual is an excellent scientist but does not yet meet WP's criteria for notability; neither the general notability guideline nor the specific guidelines for academics. There are a couple independent news sources covering his work (this is not uncommon in science news, given the influence of university press releases, although admittedly the two sources cited in the current version of the article do focus more on Cohn himself than is typical in these kinds of articles) but they are not enough to constitute significant coverage or to meet any of the WP:NACADEMICS criteria. The rest of the sources are his own scholarly papers, which don't constitute independent demonstration of notability of the author himself. The article was created by a single-purpose account which I suspect was a research assistant or lab manager assigned to create this page, which would explain why it reads like an advertisement. (Also note that this nomination is not related to a previous nomination which was started, but never completed, in 2014 ). GermanJoe (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - completing this nomination on behalf of IP user 80.4.164.166, nomination statement copied from article talkpage (no own stance on the article). GermanJoe (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: If the article's tone, contents, or references are poor, then that's an argument for improvement rather than deletion unless better sources don't exist. They do. Books which reference him and his work include this, this, and this.  Articles which reference him and his work include this, this, and this. GScholar (acknowledging issues, and noting that this is a small field) has a few somewhat cited works. Meets WP:NACADEMIC#1 and WP:ANYBIO#2.  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  09:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as this seems currently convincing for an article. SwisterTwister   talk  07:16, 1 February 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.