Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott A. McLuckey


 * 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The result was   Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott A. McLuckey

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article is a simple CV with no indication of any notability - though given the CV there probably is none. Emeraude (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While he is apparently a good professor, there doesn't seem to be any notability. Even the folks who gave him the Anachem Award don't include any information about him on their website. --Habap (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Due to far better sourcing and evidence of notability, as well as replacement of the CV info with prose, it's now a reasonable article. Great work, Mr Eppstein! --Habap (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the state in which this article was originally nominated, it seemed to be close to an A7 speedy. But he passes WP:PROF C1 (11 papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar), C2 (multiple national-level awards), C5 (named chair), C6 (president ASMS), and C8 (editor IJMS). The sourcing on the article needs improvement, but that can be fixed. I've improved the sourcing, so that's no longer a reason to delete either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clear keep as shown above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Well done David Eppstein. This now seems to be a useful article and notability has apparently been established. I'm happy to remove my nomination. Emeraude (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: meets WP:PROF criteria #5. More third-party sourcing would however be preferable (otherwise its "lack of reliable, independent sources" caveat may apply). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per David Eppstein. Passes several of the criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2010 (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.