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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth A. Loparo (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)

This appear to be an autobiography. It's largely self-promotional and does not appear to satisfy WP:NACADEMICS. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ?. Would the nom like to say if subject passes WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of cites in Google scholar or if he passes WP:Prof#C5? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

It's not clear to me that he does pass WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of Google Scholar, but I would welcome some feedback from people who know more about his field. I also can't determine if he passes WP:Prof#C5. He does not appear to be a distinguished professor but I'm not sure what a "Nord Professor" is. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly an endowed chair of precisely the type described by #C5. That's what it means to be called by something of the form "X Professor" where X looks like the name of a person or company. (Distinguished Professor, University Professor, etc. are something different but comparable in the level of distinction they convey.) If you aren't familiar with this convention, perhaps guessing which of our articles on academics are worth keeping might not be your strength. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - is an IEEE Fellow, which is the example used at WP:PROF#C3. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. I'm not familiar enough with citation patterns in this branch of EE to say whether they are typically low or high but seven papers with over 100 cites each should be good enough for WP:PROF#C1 regardless. And the passes of #C3 and #C5 have already been well demonstrated above. The autobiography issue is indeed a problem, but the article seems reasonably factual and neutral despite that (although perhaps the listing of minor awards could be trimmed); the article creator should be admonished to concentrate his Wikipedia editing on subjects where his expertise can be helpful without having so much of a conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on the basis of cites in Google scholar, passes WP:Prof#C5 also. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. As an endowed chair and department chair of a major university and a fellow member of the IEEE, he is surely notable. He has won awards for both his research and his teaching. —teb728 t c 06:40, 29 July 2014 (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.