Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Campbell Aitken


 * 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 as unmet with deletion consensus, nac,  SwisterTwister   talk  02:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert Campbell Aitken

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Robert Aitken just doesn't seem notable. I have tried to fill out this article, but I can't find many references to the man. I tried to deorphan it, but I couldn't find any reasonable way. It's at a dead end, yet editors stop in once in a while. I would have PRODed it, but I don't think it will go away that easily. — Myk Streja ( who? ) 01:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   03:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  06:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Verifiably meets WP:NACADEMIC#3 as a Fellow of IEEE. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO (IEEE fellow is a well-known and significant honor). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * IEEE seems valid but why are GS cites so low? This is odd. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep per WP:PROF. Re #cites: I see 193, 166, 160, and 95 citations for his top papers, not bad but nothing special (enough only for a weak keep on #C1 if we didn't have #C3 instead). My guess is that his IEEE Fellowship was based more heavily on his industry accomplishments than on his scholarly publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep from WP:Prof Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2017 (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.