Deletion of John E.S. Lawrence

Comment: Fails to meet notability requirements for academics or general notability requirements. There may also be |conflict of interest issues as the only major contributors to the article appear to be John E.S. Lawrence and his wife
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: GS gives cites of 35, 20, 9, 6, 5, h = 5. Does not look encouraging for rof
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: no indication that the topic meets  or . No indication that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", meaning that  is not met
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:BIO||WP:GNG)

Comment: I contested this speedy as A7 only applies to an article that "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant".  The article says he's an adjunct professor, one of the http://www.ctr.columbia.edu/dvmm/tedc/tedc03/ links in the article clearly states that he has over 100 publications and by reading the talk page and going to one of the articles mentioned it would appear that the Lawrence Peaks were named after him.  To me this is more than enough to not be speedied as to survive a speedy there only has to be indications why they may be notable - it does not have to be proved.  At the time I thought it unlikely that the article would survive  (unless removed by author) or fD but thought it deserved longer consideration in case I'd missed something
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD||WP:A)

Comment: Does not pass rof #1 or other academic criteria. Only other claim to notability is the happenstance of being the leader of a New Zealand Antarctic expedition that identified the Lawrence Peaks, an article also extensively edited by the subject. My view is that the matter is dealt with sufficiently in that article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P)

Comment: Per the discussion above, we don't have enough of a record of heavy citation of his works to justify passing  #1. Merely having a long list of publications of some sort is not part of the  criteria. And I don't see any other reason for keeping
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:PROF)

Comment: upon reading the stub, the arguments from independent editors, and , it does not appear this person passes  as an adjunct.  If additional sources can show his notability as a consultant, then he might pass  generically
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PROF||WP:N)