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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. A reminder to people, let's please be civil about these affairs. Non admin closure. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Aaker

[edit]

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

non-notable "marketing specialist". unreferenced BLP, has written some books about marketing, but hardly that warrants coverage in an encyclopaedia. Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really a CV, but it's a brief blurb here. On this, I'd focus on WP:PROF - and Mr. Aaker doesn't seem to hold to this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep per other research found. Good job. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named chair at Berkeley is a pass of WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep. Top GS cites are 2067, 1531, 1191, 1107, 973... I stopped counting after this. The cites surpass anything I have yet seen in these pages. Passes WP:Prof #1 in spades. Do the deleters know something they have not told us? Xxanthippe (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep His book Consumerism is in 1164 WorldCat libraries; Developing Business Strategies is in 1155; Strategic market management , published in 26 eds. and translated into German also, is in 1061; Marketing research and Building Strong Brands each translated into multiple languages and held in over 990 WorldCat libraries; other books; 890, 778, 605, 453, 382. [1]. There are certainly going to be reviews, which should be found and added and make up the appropriate references. This is way sufficient to show him as an authority in his field. How one can judge someone doesnt meet WP:PROF without even checking his books puzzles me. If there ever was a case for requiring WP:BEFORE, it is this reckless nomination--and some of the others in the series. I strongly suggest the nominator -- apparently a newcomer who just started today and has done nothing except nominate articles for deletion, show good faith and an awareness of the need to learn Wikipedia guidelines by withdrawing this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination. Clearly notable. Himalayan 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OKAY, I withdraw this one. I have been reading your messages and I think in some ways it is six of one and half a doxen of the other. I don't like to be called ridiculous: and I agree with DGG that this is indeed notable. However, I object to the suggestion that all my nominations are "ridiculous":, as they clearly are not. I never mentioned "Prof": I just misjudged the importance of a load of books about marketing. I am trying to do the right thing, I am not nominating masses of articles each day, and I think the encyclopedia will be better for it. So yes, I show good faith and withdraw my nomination. Now you show good faith to me! Animatronic Fruit Loop (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (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.