Deletion of Jerome Katz

Comment: looks like the guy passes . Since the main contributor to the article has a conflict of interests check the article for possible bias
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: the article's subject barely meets . Perhaps it's time to re-examine the guideline
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: I don't agree with the paid editing one bit, but he does have a named chair and  is specific in saying that that is enough for notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMICS)

Comment: Notability is clear, cut and dry, obvious, and settled, with passes of both #C1 and #C5. I can only imagine that all of the  comments above are either completely unfamiliar with  and with academic deletion cases, or are letting their opinions be biased by the paid editing issue rather than viewing notability objectively as a separate issue. As for the paid editing: it's a legitimate reason for calling an AfD in spite of clear notability, and if the paid-editing version were still the version we were debating I'd agree that  is appropriate. But I think subsequent edits have removed that issue to the point where we can debate the article on the basis of notability alone
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF||WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE||WP:TNT)

Comment: mdash;Per http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LLGTyjAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra google scholar:  h-index is ~28, 10 publications with >100 cites.  That's a pretty clear evidence for  #1:  ''The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)

Comment: meets . The article being created by a paid editor is not a sufficient policy reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NACADEMIC)