Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Dordick

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. — CharlotteWebb 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Dordick

Subject not noteable

• Delete per WP:PROF; no evidence of coverage by multiple non-trivial published sources. Walton monarchist89 17:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Sorry I didn't include any secondary sources. I guess I didn't read WP:PROF carefully enough. Heres one source: [1]. Still, I was not sure of notability when I created this page, and am still not sure. The only reason I created it was someone thought he was important enough to list on the RPI page under "Important Researchers", he is a department head, leads a research groups, patents, and has a chaired professorship. Danski14 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Weak Keep, if Danski14 can add secondary sources to the article to back up these claims. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. First hit on Google Scholar is in a major journal (Nature) and has 300 citations listed. He's 2nd author but the second hit (Enzymatic catalysis in monophasic organic solvents, Enzyme and microbial technology, 1989) is solo and has more than 200 cites. Clearly passes WP:PROF 3.3. —David Eppstein 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, As I mentioned above, I (the creator) will add the link to the Physorg article [2] and any other major articles I find, if this page is kept. Also, I would like to mention that I have a suspicion that the nominator is mad at me for tagging his page The Orange Mangoes for speedy deletion, but I still think this discussion is fair. Danski14 19:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, lacking sources and references Alf photoman 23:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep holder of named chair at research university. Quite enough papers, as shown above. Mention of them should be put in the article , of course, and I assume it will. Dept head adds to it. Official university pages document the positions. (and I remind everyone that WP:PROF is not even a guideline, its a proposed guideline which after many tries in many versions has never obtained consensus. People discussing it on its talk page were hard to convince that it was actually being used at AfD debates in its present state. DGG 05:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Awards, patents, named chair, papers. John Vandenberg 17:13, 8 February 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.