Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Stevenson

:{{la|Paul Stevenson}} ([{{fullurl:Paul Stevenson|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Stevenson}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Does not establish notability. Hundreds of university professors have published their work, this one is no different, and there is nothing unusual or special. Further more the article is a significant copy of pages from his employers [http://www.surrey.ac.uk website], as found by CorenSearchBot. Patchy1Talk To Me! 14:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Better to expand this article and create others on people who have published 60 papers. Abtract (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There does not appear to be anything special about this person. Triplestop x3 15:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• note. I have fixed the copyvio problem (if one existed) and added some more substance. Abtract (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Among papers where he's first author, the best only has 15 citations in Google scholar; two his other papers, where he played a non-leading role as part of a larger team, are a little better cited but not well enough to convince me that he passes WP:PROF #1. There is no sign that he passes the other WP:PROF criteria. And the heel size formula in the Grauniad, while an amusing sidelight, does not seem enough to base a biography on. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Order of authors is unassessable information in this field. Apart from that I agree with above comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2009 (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.