Deletion of Christopher D'Elia

Comment: Pass of rof#C1 with high GS cites, even in a highly cited field
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: obviously. Passes multiple  criteria. I think he does happen to also pass  but that should not be necessary; both are notability guidelines at an equal level, applicable to different cases, rather than one taking precedence over the other. Most of the comments here seem to be focusing on the poor state of the article as nominated rather than on the actual notability of the subject; that is a mistake
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:GNG)

Comment: as by the relevant guideline   which says "this is an independent guidelines". The sources are clearly, as stated by there and WP:Primary acceptable for verifying firsthand knowledge exactly how we would in anything of this field
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I agree with comments above. It meets . I added some additional content and some references for verifiability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I usually think some of the critera in  on their own are not stringent enough (i.e., having a bunch of citations is extremely arbitrary for determining notability for generating content), but there's enough of a mixture to just make it past . Just a note that Google Scholar is not reliable for citation counts as the citation counts can sometimes vastly overinflated by included non-peer reviewed sources, sometimes websites, etc. Web of Science and Scopus show a decent publication history though. Nothing that would immediately make me think it would be worthwhile to write an article, but enough that I wouldn't argue against keeping it either
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: this isn't even really close. Citations counts of 569, 262, 247, 201, and 150 on the first 5 listings on Scholar. Clearly passes . And he also held the rank of https://books.google.com/books?id=4PsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA79&dq=%22Christopher+D'Elia%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi89ea_m87VAhVJ1WMKHVpACkUQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=%22Christopher%20D'Elia%22&f=false vice-chancellor at USF-St. Pete, and the additional entries which can be found from a cursory search on Books, clearly show he passes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSCHOLAR)

Comment: there's no indication of |significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Google Scholar isn't that, and what media coverage D'Elia has received is just short quotes that provide no information about D'Elia himself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: per David Eppstein and : even if one contests whether or not each of the individual claims to passing PROF are correct, there is clearly enough here combined that you get to a PROF pass. As DGG notes, that is independent of the GNG, and regardless, it wouldn't matter if it wasn't in the text of the guideline:  makes it clear that SNGs are equal to the GNG: {{tq|It is presumed notable if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right}}. We need to start remembering that the GNG is only ''one part'' of the larger notability guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: as I said above, meeting one of the notability criteria of WP:PROF without an independent source backing up the claim is ''not enough to meet WP:PROF''. So if you are saying that he meets WP:PROF, you're welcome to point out the independent sources that confirm any of those claims. Since you asked about my reasons, PROF in my opinion is an abomination because unlike any other notability guideline I'm aware of, it makes notability independent of coverage in secondary sources and tacks the requirement of independent sources on as an afterthought, which leads to many people (including every single "keep" !vote in this discussion that argues PROF) forgetting about that part and claiming that an article with no reliable secondary sources whatsoever beyond a database free of interpretation can establish that the subject is notable ''and is appropriate for Wikipedia''. Google Scholar's citation count will not allow us to write an encyclopedia article. I have not seen anybody beyond Onel5969 provide an independent source that ''discusses the subject'', and that one is local gossip, basically. So in short, I do not think sufficient secondary sources exist to write a meaningful article about this person, and Wikipedia articles should not just be a summary of primary sources. That's , part of WP:NOR, which is policy and trumps notability guidelines. The article does not meet one of our core content policies, and I have seen no indication that it's salvageable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)