Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Anestis

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The result was speedy keep: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Anestis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. His work has been mentioned in reliable sources, but not to the extent it meets criteria for an article. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 25 in high cited field gives reasonable pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguous pass of WP:PROF#C5 (named professorship at major research university) as well as the strong case for #C1 (e.g. 7 papers with over 100 cites each in Google scholar). Nominator's claim that the subject fails WP:PROF does not seem to have been grounded in any careful analysis, because the named professorship was already listed at the time of nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious pass of PROF c1,5. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Withdrawn nomination - I have since found additional sources to support notability and wish to withdraw my nomination for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2016 (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.