Deletion of Nathan Bryan (scientist)

Comment: 16 papers with over 100 GS cites passes rof#C1
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Passes rof#C1 per having been a part of the authorship of a substantial number of scholarly articles (48 counted in Google Scholar), and many of the articles have significant citation rates. For example, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584907002936 This paper is cited in https://www.scopus.com/results/citedbyresults.uri?sort=plf-f&cite=2-s2.0-34547093890&src=s&imp=t&sid=7180283A95A4E560AC5981A4A9E6554E.WXhD7YyTQ6A7Pvk9AlA%3a30&sot=cite&sdt=a&sl=0&origin=inward&editSaveSearch=&txGid=0 183 documents
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: for a shoddy nomination. As Xxanthippe already stated, and as anyone else doing the same search would see, the subject clearly passes #C1. I am unable to even explain this nomination except to hypothesize that the nominator saw the phrase "assistant professor" and stopped there, not even trying to do a search for the author's name on Google scholar, despite claiming to do so in the nom. (The subject, it should be noted, is not actually an assistant professor, but an industry researcher with a courtesy title.) A hint to the lack of attention in making this nomination is given in the author's contributions, where seven edits relating to the creation of this AfD are sandwiched so tightly between two other deletion nominations that the software shows no difference in their timestamps. Another hint (typical for all of this editor's contributions to AfD) is a statement so vague that it could be cut and pasted on any other AfD, with nothing in the nomination statement specific to the actual subject of the nomination. That is not the thoughtful attention to notability that we should hope for in the creation of a discussion that is supposed to occupy the attention of multiple other editors for a period of at least a week. And a  to the nominator in addition, for being so miserly of their own time that they end up wasting ours instead
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:TROUT)

Comment: lack of  by the usual suspects
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)