Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Shanefield

:{{la|Daniel J. Shanefield}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Daniel J. Shanefield}})

No indication that this ceramics engineer satisfies WP:PROFESSOR or WP:BIO. This article has been WP:PRODded in the past. The article has a long history of WP:COI with the subject editing the article himself. Pburka (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete For how long he worked at Bell labs he probably did something notable, but there is really no claim of notability present, referenced or otherwise, so delete. Monty₈₄₅ 19:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Although he has several published materials and has purported high standing within an academic institution, there is no indication that any reliable independent sources have recognized any significant academic impact he has made. Lord Arador (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 12:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

:*Striking my !vote, happy to see it sourced. J04n(talk page) 22:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral Comment I agree with all the above reasoning with respect to the PROFESSOR and GNG guidelines, but see one more path to notability not discussed. The [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Daniel+J.+Shanefield&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws Gscholar results] suggest some citations made of his work, including a book, I'm sufficiently inexperienced with notability via citation and WP:SCHOLAR that I'm not taking a position on the matter, but I'd welcome a comment on that point. Switched to Keep based on improvements to sourcing, e.g., the section in Raoux. Nicely done. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A Google Books search turns up a lot of hits. Most are to conference proceedings with articles by Shanefield, but at least a few are by other people. One describes him as a pioneer in phase change memories. Google Scholar turns up books, papers, and patents by Shanefield that have received a fair number of citations. The reason there are no references or claims of notability in the current version of the page is that they have been systematically deleted, always by a user identified only by an IP address. Apparently someone is piqued that Prof. Shanefield has edited his own page. While frowned upon, this is not illegal, and the material that was formerly there all seems verifiable. Better than deleting the page would be to restore the removed material, toning it down a bit to read less like a CV, and to add some citations to independent sources. Will Orrick (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. --bender235 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Keep. Plenty of reliable sources can be found via GS which give and h index of 13, probably enough to make a pass of WP:Prof#C1 marginal. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC).
• Also, after years in industry, he was hired as Professor II at Rutgers, which is roughly equivalent to Distinguished Professor at other American universities. Rutgers is a major research university. This suggests that he is notable in his field. Will Orrick (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. According to his cv [http://homepage.mac.com/shanefield/Resume1.html] he is a fellow of Amer. Inst. Chemists and American Ceramic Society. I'm not sure about the AIC one but I think the ACS one is likely a pass of WP:PROF#C3, and the cv details enough important accomplishments that, if they can be documented by third party sources (and I've already documented two, tape casting and phase-change memory), would pass #C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I have made significant improvements to the article since it was first nominated. Could the people who !voted to delete it on the basis of how bad it was at nomination time please review it again? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Elected fellows (not merely members) of professional associations of this standing surely meet WP:PROF. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2011 (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.