Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Sears

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. And yes, I've ignored the stray delete - has no use for lack of clarity. Synergy 07:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sears

Topic lacks notability, and google returns nothing secondary. Fails WP:N Leonard^(Bloom) 17:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - has no use!Olliyeah (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 455 well-cited (100, 95, 64 ...) gscholar hits, 168 gbook hits (publ after 1960); first few pages of each are (almost) all good hits for this Andrew Sears. Editor-in-chief of ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, department chair.John Z (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Appears to be a fairly minor academic. II | (t - c) 20:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Scholar hits are impressive. Clearly a highly notable academic.--Michig (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Always use quotes for precision. A search for "Andrew Sears" yields ~500 hits on Google Scholar. II | (t - c) 21:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but I only had to look at the first couple of pages of results to decide that he is notable. Ben Shneiderman is one of the top HCI experts, and Sears gets his name ahead of him on co-authored papers, and the papers are highly-cited.--Michig (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trust your judgment then. II | (t - c) 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add information to the article about his publication record and importance; as it stands, the article doesn't assert much in the way of notability. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Editor of multiple journals, chair of a department (albeit ranked 72nd by US News). Short of getting an expert in the field to comment, I think that's the best we're going to get. A list of his publications is available on his webpage, by the way, so using Google Scholar is rather unnecessary. RayAYang (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GoogleScholar citation results[1] are fairly impressive with top citation hits of 100, 97, 67, 51, 57. Also, he is an Editor-in-Chief of the journal "ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing"[2], which is usually a solid indicator of having high stature in the field. Nsk92 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject's notability is confirmed, as per the previous comments -- but in fairness to the AfD nominator's concerns, the article's writing is weak and it is lacking referenced sources. I genuinely wish that people would take the extra effort to include references and links in their articles before submitting them for publication. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2008 (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.