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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no dissenting !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Hugo Linder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject fails WP:Notability. References all from "affiliated" type sources, not independent third-party publications. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I disagree with other editors' interpretation of WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF, but I trust their collective wisdom is correct. I hope we can actually see substantive improvement to the article though, since it is lacking in sufficient WP:independent sources that establish notability. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep under WP:ACADEMIC criteria #3. Article could definitely be improved, but he's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't there still need to be reliable secondary sources discussing such developments, as opposed to affiliated self-published material? Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why would we judge this individual under the academic criteria, when it wouldn't be inaccurate to even describe him as such? He was a corporate executive, and he was a member and leader of certain professional associations, not "scholarly society or association." Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of his career, he satisfies one of the criterion for notability, which are fairly explicit. The IEEE is even used as the canonical example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Our guidelines explicitly state we should keep articles on the IEEE fellows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he's not an academic. Shouldn't these criteria only apply if he was actually an academic? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No..."academic" in this context is an idiom meaning anyone working in any techno-scientific capacity, including chemists, biologists, scientists, etc. who do not necessary hold a formal academic appointment. Your nomination may have been a mistake based on semantics. In any case, a founder of the National Academy is an obvious keep, as many here have already pointed-out. Would be good-form for you to withdraw this nomination. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Whether it is kept or merged to the parent subject, deletion doesn't seem an appropriate outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - He was a founding member of the National Academy of Engineering, which is the United States national academy for engineers, and on a par with the National Academy of Sciences. Daderot (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep IEEE fellow, founding member of the National Academy of Engineering. Bad joke. --Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. One doesn't have to hold an academic position to be notable via WP:PROF. This particular criterion (#3) is one of the easiest parts of WP:PROF to justify by other Wikipedia policie, as these memberships and fellowships are explicit recognition of his accomplishments by third parties. That is to say, these people noted him, therefore he is obviously notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. Nominator should withdraw nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (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.