Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Tasker

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tasker

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 source cited 3 times for a small handful of facts. There's nothing that satisfies for this article's need to exist. -- Tytrox (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I've decided to withdraw the nomination. Perhaps I should've brought it up as a discussion on the Talk page first, but hindsight gets the best of me sometimes. I felt I had a reasonable understanding on how my nomination was justified, but it appears there's more than I thought. Thank you everyone for your input. -- Tytrox (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. –Cupper52^Discuss! 17:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NPROF. Tytrox, the referencing is fine for someone who meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Cupper52, Fellow of the IEEE is the example used in criteria #3 of WP:NPROF, and is definitely evidence of notablility. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Passes both criteria #C1 (well-cited publications) and #C3 (fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor) of WP:PROF. Speedy because, to paraphrase User:Cupper52, we have no evidence that the nominator or first commentator even tried to evaluate this according to the correct notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NPROF#3 as IEEE fellow and NRPROF#1 due to citation record.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF C1 and C3. It'd be good to have sources outside of Cardiff U's newsletter for his main honors, but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I added (primary) sources for them. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Meets WP:PROF#C1 due to his citation record and WP:PROF#C3 for being an IEEE Fellow, as easily verified through their website if desired. (The article currently gives two different dates for this; apparently, he was part of the Fellows class for 2015, and this was announced the previous November.) XOR'easter (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Passes both criteria #C1 (well-cited publications) and #C3 (fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor) of WP:PROF. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom has withdrawn the nomination, so an admin should close it. -Cupper52^Discuss! 10:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cupper52, IIRC the rules, you'd need to strike your delete vote first. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.