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. Nomination withdrawn. Graham87 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriacos A. Athanasiou[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for academics, or is a borderline case at best. The article has been created and primarily edited by Bioengineering (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account whose only edits over the last nine-and-a-half years have been to promote Athanasiou and his work. Graham87 02:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Graham87 02:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - May require some cleanup for neutrality, but GS shows an h index of 81, far more than what would usually be required for a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Assuming we can verify it, the fact that a subject is an AAAS Fellow is generally held to meet WP:PROF#C3. And I think his appointment as Distinguished Professor at UC Irvine is a pretty straightforward pass of WP:PROF#C5. EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @EricEnfermero: Thanks for your comment; I've never encountered a case quite like this. The article just seemed to be stretching so hard to prop his credentials up ... like the first item refers to an award from the Nemitsas Foundation, which doesn't have an article here, as the Cypriot equivalent of the Nobel Prize. Maybe the article needs some TNT (at least content-wise)? But as for him being an AAAS Fellow, here's a source straight from the horse's mouth. Graham87 04:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. This is one of those articles that are quite wretchedly written (e.g. as WP:PROMO) but, still, deserve to stay up on account of WP:N. Requires some serious clean up, though. Also, the article's creator should be warned about a potential WP:COI, or perhaps WP:AUTOBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF as argued above, and though it needs a thorough de-promotionalization, this can probably be done just by cutting the existing text, rather than having to dynamite the whole thing and start from scratch. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the unanimous consensus above seems to be to keep the article, and the edits last night to remove the self-promotion are a good start, I've withdrawn this nomination. Graham87 04:25, 15 March 2018 (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.