Deletion of Ghil'ad Zuckermann

Comment: Daniel, you are right that the fact that Zuckerman is not a full professor does not mean that he is not notable: it works the other way around: some positions (such as a named chair) implicate that someone is notable, but someone can be notable without having such a position. However, the fact that Zuckerman's work is cited by some other academics is not necessarily a sign that he (or his work) meets . Heck, my grad student's work is cited by at least 10 other scientists and she hasn't even written her thesis yet. In order to meet the "citations" criterion of , you will have to show that Zuckerman is cited above the average of what is normal for his field. Usually, this means that there will be hundreds of citations to a person's work, not a handful. For the moment, the quotes that you have uncovered -however flattring- do not entice me to change my vote
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: Neither the article nor the nomination feels quite right.  So far as I can tell, Zuckermann fails  in that he is not more notable than your average academic.  I don't see any awards (leaving aside research grants).  His http://www.zuckermann.org/research.html publication record is solid, but not stellar.  But I don't know how he is received in the field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: The subject is prolific, well-cited, controversial inside and outside academia, and has received outstanding awards and fellowships, which, in sum, is notable.  I can see that this 3 year old article deserves several improvement templates, but it does not deserve to be deleted.  IMHO, this 3 year old article is worth saving, and should not be dumped in the ol' bit bin. As for , in this case  should trump.  Wikipedia is better with this article than without.  Wikipedia will be even better if someone were to improve this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:IAR)

Comment: The academic/professor meets one of  conditions: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." (Criterion 7). The article itself is informative, factual and well-referenced. It ought to satisfy WP inclusionists at the very least
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: See .... And please don't forget to sign your contributions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: although this scholar has some notability in being discussed outside of academia he is still not notable under .  He is not a full professor.  He has no chair.  He has written one book and many journal articles, but that would put him in the same class as thousands of other academics across Australia.  Also, to clarify, ARC Discovery Fellowships are not that prestigious - even I have gotten one and there is no way I would merit a page on wikipedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: Crieff, I have a few questions about this AfD. To start with, I think this is the first time that I see that the very first edit that someone makes is proposing an article for AfD. Doing so is not that easy for a newbie. Care to comment on that? Further, the article contains quite a few claims to notability. Before I start checking the mentioned sources myself, would you perhaps comment on why you think these sources are not adequate and exactly why this subject does not meet ? Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: I concur with RJC re the requests for specifics. But also: the fact the article has been around for three years, which you mention twice, is not relevant here, since what is at issue is whether the subject satisfies 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)

Comment: There's a lot of detail in here but not a lot of third-party sourcing about the subject nor is there much that I can read as a claim of notability. Subject appears to be a recent Ph.D. with one book. I don't see this as passing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF)