- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article - all major edits are by User:Pclift, who has previously removed a speedy delete tag from this article. I don't feel that this subject meets the notability guidelines for professors. CLW 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's quite a bit out there by this fellow. A Google News Archive search shows a number of results regarding his Indus River studies and one BBC article, and Google Scholar turns up quite a few papers he's authored or co-authored. To me, that edges up on WP:PROF. Weak keep - but suggest to the author that he read WP:COI and get some of these sources into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't know enough about geology to judge whether Prof. Clift is notable; if independent sources discussing his work can be cited, I'd say keep. I don't think the COI issues are unresolvable, since as it stands the article mainly just lists his areas of study. EALacey 20:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Full professors in research universities are almost certainly notable: he is holder of a named chair in a UK university, which is more than equivalent to a similar position in the US. His home page shows 93 publications, almost all in peer reviewed journals, most of them the leading UK and international journals. Co editor of several books, associate editor of several journals. As always, the external sources testifying to notability are the committees of his peers which appointed him to his position, and have therefore necessarily carried out a more stringent review for notability in his position than any we could do. Such a person always will have multiple important publications, and he does. That's the additional evidence. I'll get it & the rest of the details in the article tomorrow. The speedy delete was altogether out of order, for the assertion of notability is unmistakable--unless one believes that no professor can be notable. Despite potential COI, a straightforward article. Too modest, if anything. DGG 03:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.