Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Newhouse

: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. Nominator has withdrawn, all other votes are keep. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

=[[Joseph Newhouse]]=

:{{la|Joseph Newhouse}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Joseph Newhouse}})

no reliable secondary sourcing establishing notability aprock (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

keep—please stop it, i'm not even doing h-index on this one as he obviously meets WP:PROF both #2 and #3.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I can see why the named chair at Harvard would have stopped Alf.laylah.wa.laylah from looking further (and it should have stopped the nominator). But if one did look, one would find that his top publication has 3000 citations and that his h-index appears to be 79. These are stellar numbers, far higher than we usually see here and far higher than is needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. Not to mention [http://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&hl=en&gl=us&as_q=Joseph-Newhouse+harvard 138 hits in Google news archive]... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
withdraw I'm happy to withdraw this. aprock (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:28, 3 October 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.