Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cuff

: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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_preload&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:James Cuff}}&preloadparams%5b%5d={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Cuff}}&editintro=Wikipedia%3AXFDcloser%2FSoft_deletion_refund_intro&preloadtitle={{urlencode:James Cuff}}§ion=new&title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_undeletion&create=Request request the article's undeletion]. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

=[[:James Cuff]]=

:{{la|1=James Cuff}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=James Cuff}})

citations 1 and 3 subject was not lead or co-lead author.

Should be resubmitted to properly represent subject as in computing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooploop23k (talk • contribs) 20:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Discussion was not properly transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Per his [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22James%20Cuff%22 GScholar], he still appears to be the priamry or second writer on 4 papers with over 800 cites. Curbon7 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Weak delete I agree that this person was an author on some highly referenced papers but I don't see any other signs of notability. I'm not sure if his role as director of a research office is anything equivalent to "named chair". I see this person as a capable, working scientist but not otherwise distinguished. I also note that he himself requested that the page be deleted for lack of notability. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
:I think that an encyclopedia entry should contain its own justification and answer, or hint at an answer, to 'what is this person known for?' Or at very least hints at where an answer might be found. It can be precise (discovered X) or based on authority (won XX prize) or vague (developed novel uses for ...). Known for being cited is circular. Hooploop23k (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello all. I’m the subject of this article and have also requested deletion in the past. This article has also been requested for deletion a number of times by the original author. I would be more than happy to see this page simply go away so y’all can focus on properly notable humans in the encyclopedia.

(Also sorry if I messed up this comment, I have no idea how this works, but wanted to add a little color.

All the best,

J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrCuff (talk • contribs) 17:24, 31 December 2022 (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.