Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Nason

:{{la|Guy_Nason}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Guy_Nason}})

Does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF. Max-brod (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)— Max-brod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• keep — based solely on his receipt of guy medal in bronze from the rss, clearly falling under wp:prof#2, not to mention the ever-popular [http://interaction.lille.inria.fr/~roussel/projects/scholarindex/index.cgi?btnG=Search+Scholar&as_sauthors=guy+nason&as_allsubj=some&as_subj=eng&as_q=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&x_minr=&as_occt=any&hl=en&lr= h-index of 17] — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Clear keep as above. Searching for G P Nason in GS I get a h-index of 20 with four hits with over 100 cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
• Keep{{spaced ndash}}The individual's accomplishments are notable, and the article has reliable references. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Received a significant award, fairly high citability, several journal editorships - enough here to pass WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. The edit history of the nominator is interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

:*comment — fascinating indeed. if you believe his userpage, he was born in 1824. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

::*comment. Allow me to point out that the article was also created by an editor with next to no other edits (User:Boby1001). Moreover, the user making the most edits to the page was an IP editor logging in from the subject's home institution (namely, User:137.222.80.43). Max-brod (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: due to publications - h-index - associate editorships etc but I am not sure about the RSS's Bronze Guy Medal being enough for our WP:prof #2 even though it helps for overall notablility. (WP:prof #2 .The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.) The text from the RSS reads The Bronze Medal may be awarded to fellows, or to non-fellows who are members of a section or a local group, in respect of a paper or papers read to a section or local group or at any conference run by the Society, its sections or local groups, or published in any of the Society's journals. Preference will be given to people under the age of 35. Exceptionally two or more authors of a paper/papers may be considered for the award provided they are members of sections or local groups. [http://www.rss.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1074]. I think for a single nice paper, specially from someone younger than 35, might be pushing it a bit. (I am a member of the RSS) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC))
• Comment: I must admit I was not aware that there was an h-index level (17, apparently) virtually guaranteeing entry. Is this the case? Surely this should vary from field to field? Note also that the guidelines mention subjects that are editors-in-chief - no mention of associate editorships is made. Max-brod (talk) 16:15, 11 September 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.