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) – Davey2010 ^Talk 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Anthony Fiorillo (  | 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 does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC guidelines. Two citations in article are directly related to Fiorillo, and a search of his authored papers does not turn up anything with very significant citations. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the publications. Curro2 ( talk) 15:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Which publications? FuriouslySerene ( talk) 15:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Doesn't "An experimental study of trampling: implications for the fossil record" with 143 citations seem significant?-- Jahaza ( talk) 16:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment. It does not appear this is an obvious case either way, e.g. on publications (WoS h-index 15, citations: 60, 56, 54...). But he is listed as Chief Curator of the Perot Museum of Nature and Science. This could render him notable per se according to PROF c6, if Perot is considered to be a "major institution". Agricola44 ( talk) 00:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC). reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He meets WP:GNG; I have found and added several secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage. He is also a fellow of the Geological Society of America.— Gorthian ( talk) 19:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep perhaps based from the current article and sourcing. Notifying librarian DGG for further analysis. SwisterTwister talk 02:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. on the basis of the books and the GSA Fellowship. Many areas of geology have low citation figures, and paleontology is one of them. (In fact, the descriptive sciences in general have much lower figures than the experimental.) DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Yes, GSA fellow ... aplogies for not noticing this. Agricola44 ( talk) 15:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC). reply

Comment: I'm okay with GSA fellow being a sufficient keep criterion, but I'd like the implications of establishing the precedent to be clear: about 4% of all GSA members (incl. students) are fellows. I googled 20 of the 75 new fellows for this year who were affiliated with US universities: two named chairs, two associate profs., one research scientist -- the rest full prof. but non-named chair, or emeritus. I think that this is the correct level for WP:PROF and the Average Professor Test, but I think that it's substantially below what I've been seeing required of people in non-science fields at AfD lately or what the examples on WP:PROF suggest. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2016 (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.